The question is how much should personal liberties and freedoms hold sway in a free society. If someone jumps off a building and commits suicide, is that fair to the emergency services that have to retrieve and scrape up what is left of their body. Is it fair to the coroners court for extra work etc. How much moral responsibility does society have to its members, and how much moral responsibility do members have to their society.

Exactly! +1

The question is how much should personal liberties and freedoms hold sway in a free society. If someone jumps off a building and commits suicide, is that fair to the emergency services that have to retrieve and scrape up what is left of their body. Is it fair to the coroners court for extra work etc. How much moral responsibility does society have to its members, and how much moral responsibility do members have to their society.

What business is it by The Government?

Its their business when there are good reasons to believe she is a danger to herself or to others around her.

Look, its either act now and perhaps save everyone a lot of pain in the long run, or don't act and stand by watching while the pregnancy either kills or injures her, endangers the baby or at some point later in time results in some horrible tragedy (in which case I can assure you there will be people asking questions about why the government, who clearly knew that women was not fit to have children was still allowed to have them and why did noone stop her).

Put it this way, if you watch someone who is about to jump off a building, because he thinks his life sucks, do you not try to talk that person out of it? Or do you let him jump, potentially injuring people below, because its not your place to judge whether that persons life has any worth left?

You really believe The Government should Certify any women who wish's to become pregnant?

No, and that isn't the case here either. The government has established certain guidelines, an absolute minimal requirement for people to safely have children, and its up to the judiciary to test this guideline whenever someone brings a case arguing for sterilization. Simply put, 99.999% of everyone can just have a baby with no questions asked.

This sounds terrible and I wouldn't want to be the judge presiding on this one.

Agree 1000%

I am not altogether sure that this belongs in that category as the woman is clearly diagnosed with metal health issues and has shown that she will keep having children regardless of her ability to safely bear them and to care for them afterwards.

That is exactly the issue in a nutshell. All sides in this case happily agree with that conclusion, the thorny problem is what if anything should be done about it?

To be fair to Gary, the average chap doesn't know much about female gynaecological issues because as you say it doesn't usually get discussed over the dinner table. Pregnancy and childbirth is a messy business at the best of times without any complications during or after. Then women get labelled "too posh to push" because they opt for a caesarian birth or are advised to.

It is the lurid reporting by the media here that has inflamed the situation as in "removal from her home to a hospital, with the use of forced entry and necessary restraint, and a sterilisation against her wishes". On the face of it headlines like that are bound to whip up public opinion. All they are interested in doing is staying in business, they don't really care about the woman herself.

Last year the judge ruled the woman could be restrained and sedated when giving birth to her sixth child. He concluded a planned caesarean was the best option for delivery. He said she had an "extraordinary and complex obstetric history".

"It is right to acknowledge the extraordinary nature of the relief sought in these proceedings," Mr McKendrick told Mr Justice Cobb in a written submission. "The relief sought involves significant interference with (the woman's) basic human rights. Such interferences are however lawful, and necessary and proportionate given the complex and tragic social and medical background."

All sides here acknowledge that this will be a difficult landmark case.

Nobody is more respected than Es99 for her continual fight for womens rights, but to her credit as above, she can herself see the dilemma here. I honestly don't know what the final decision will be, I am thinking 60/40 likely the application will be granted, based upon previous decisions in her case. But I do note that this hearing was in public, not behind closed doors, I think that was quite correct.

But what about this angle? Is it possible that some of her eggs could be harvested and stored? If in time to come, she is treated for her mental problems and can then show that she has a stable relationship with a long term partner, it is not impossible that her and her partner could have "their" child via a surrogate mother. That does not remove her right as a woman to have children forever, but does prevent further inadvisable pregnancies in the short term.

Those outraged Americans might want to wonder why they aren't just, if not more, outraged at the current US government's attempts to take control over women's bodies. Where were your cries of "Nazis" when all over the US there are efforts to restrict women's access to birth control and safe abortion?

Es99...

Yeeeeesssss?

What American's are you speaking of?

Oh, I don't know Clyde, any who cry Nazi at the drop of the hat...except when they are talking about stuff American's do.

I, as an American, am equally outraged by the attempts to limit Women Rights!

Good for you.

Why, according your 'Thinking', would I, or any other Individual American, be included in the present Anti-Abortion - Anti-Women's Rights Agenda?

Why did you think I was?

Some are for, some are not. Anything different in your country?

...and your point?

This type of 'Thinking' shows a complete misunderstanding of Human Society's and Culture's.

Nope. You lost me here. What type of thinking? Are you saying that you have called American's Nazi's who are against abortion or have you not. I haven't kept track, although I was thinking of starting a game of "Nazi Bingo" and see who calls someone a Nazi first.

Note: I believe you, and other Left Wing Type's, believe I am a Right Winger. Sorry to burst the Silly, Shallow, Unthinking Left's Bubble: But I am also FOR LGBT Marriage's, and Legalization of Marijuana, among many other issue's.

Yeah, I'm really not understanding what you think is going on here. You are going to have be more specific.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Oh, that mother of 69, if I read the source correctly it was 27 pregnancies.
..

You probably won't want to be sitting next to her when she sneezes, just sayin'.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Gary asks why she would have health problems after having six children successfully already. Gary needs to learn a bit more about gynaecological issues and the toll of pregnancy on the body. It isn't pretty so it doesn't generally come up in casual conversation, but in this day and age there is no excuse to remain ignorant.

Not all women have the same issues, there is that mother of 69 children, all natural births ....

I am aware that complications (or doctor's butchery) can forever preclude another, but there is no mention of such. If you refer to age, weight, inactivity, those would be factors on the first as well as the seventh. If the women isn't taking care of herself so her general health is bad, that is likely more related to her mental health than the number of pregnancies, although it could be related to attempting to care for so many children.




Oh, that mother of 69, if I read the source correctly it was 27 pregnancies.

Of course we don't know squat about the facts, so it could well be old white male doctor's misogyny as anything.

---

This sounds terrible and I wouldn't want to be the judge presiding on this one.
There is a history of all societies trying to control and enforce women's control over their own fertility. From withholding contraception and access to abortion to forced sterilisation for 'depression' (in many cases the women so sterilised had good reason to be depressed). I am not altogether sure that this belongs in that category as the woman is clearly diagnosed with metal health issues and has shown that she will keep having children regardless of her ability to safely bear them and to care for them afterwards.

Gary asks why she would have health problems after having six children successfully already. Gary needs to learn a bit more about gynaecological issues and the toll of pregnancy on the body. It isn't pretty so it doesn't generally come up in casual conversation, but in this day and age there is no excuse to remain ignorant.

Those outraged Americans might want to wonder why they aren't just, if not more, outraged at the current US government's attempts to take control over women's bodies. Where were your cries of "Nazis" when all over the US there are efforts to restrict women's access to birth control and safe abortion?

---

Reality Internet Personality

She has had 6 children without issues it seems.
What suddenly changed that another pregnancy will put her in danger? No facts in the story.

Good points and questions, all we know is what the media tells us, which is not enough so far to come to a fair and balanced judgement.

Understand this is an 'Uncomfortable' Question for you, and your unwillingness to answer.

This case in a uncomfortable issue for everyone.

A Judge in the Court of Protection is being asked to make a decision.

The Court of Protection in English law is a superior court of record created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It has jurisdiction over the property, financial affairs and personal welfare of people who it claims lack mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Being sectioned under the Mental Health act 1983, or being declared insane under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, are all different things.

She has had 6 children without issues it seems.
What suddenly changed that another pregnancy will put her in danger? No facts in the story.
Some doctor playing God and deciding he doesn't like her morals?

---

Before any more of the usual suspects get all uptight at media headlines, shall we actually take the trouble to examine the facts of this case.

A mother-of-six with learning disabilities could be sterilised after health authority and social services bosses asked a judge for permission to force entry into her home, restrain her and take her to hospital. The woman, who is in her 30s, has had her children removed from her care and authorities say she has physical health problems which could put her life in danger if she became pregnant again.

Barrister John McKendrick, who represented a health authority, hospital trust and council involved in the case, said the rulings sought were "extraordinary" and would involve serious interference with the woman's basic human rights, but he said they were necessary. They say the woman could be at "grave" risk if action is not taken, while specialists say she lacks the mental capacity to make decisions about treatment.

Lawyers appointed by the court to represent the woman's interests have backed the plan put forward by health and social services officials. They have agreed the woman "lacks capacity" because her mind is impaired. Barrister Michael Horne, who is representing the interests of the woman, said the issues raised had nothing to do with "eugenics". He said sterilisation was "therapeutic" and the most effective way of mitigating "grave risks" to the woman's health and life.

Mr Justice Cobb was told the woman and her partner had repeatedly refused to co-operate or engage with medical and social services staff and a legal representative. She had said she wanted to be "left alone". The judge has seen evidence from psychiatrists, an obstetrician and gynaecologist plus social workers. Details of a number of gynaecological problems the woman had were detailed in the report.

Specialists have said the issues would pose a grave risk to her health if she became pregnant again. The judge was also told professionals had faced difficulties in trying to persuade the woman to use contraception and in administering contraception.

Those appear to be the basic facts of the case, but there are also so many other unanswered questions.

Is this partner of hers the father of all six children, or of any?
If not how many different fathers have there been? Where are they?
Does this partner have any intention of trying to form a future stable relationship?
What sort of future do the existing children have? What are their ages?
If she is allowed to continue, how many other children will she have? 7,8,9,10 ?
Who will care for them?

It is of importance here to note that there is no prosecution nor defence as in other court cases, all people, including lawyers appointed to represent her, have agreed with the proposed way forward.

She is sadly of diminished responsibility, of no fault of her own, and someone who is unable or unwilling to understand the need for contraception, to avoid bringing children in to this world that clearly she is unable to care for. Quite apart from it seems gynecological problems that could threaten her own life. There is also the worry that she is a target for unscrupulous men who just see her as easy sex with no responsibility.

But at the heart of this issue is this

"Is it morally right that she should, for her own benefit, and her existing 6 children, be protected from herself"

I would not want to be in that Judges shoes, whatever he finally rules, he will get slammed by one side or the other.

A Judicial Ruling's do result in giving Unintended Authority to The Government. Many times for The Worse.

Larger Question: How do we control the Increasing Power of Controlling Government?

Clyde that has got nothing to do with this poor womans predicament. Just because you are paranoid about Big brother, don't bring your frailties here.

To play devil's advocate for a moment.

The story says there are 'grave risks' to the woman's health and life if she become pregnant again.
Would you rather she was left alone, got pregnant again, and died, probably taking the unborn child with her?

People of sound mind should be allowed to make their make decisions, but what of those who are not of sound mind?

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Oh... My... God...

.
.
.

Health and social services officials want the judge to declare: the woman lacks capacity to make decisions under the terms of mental capacity legislation; a "therapeutic" sterilisation is in her best interests – and authorise medics to sterilise her; to authorise her removal from her home to a hospital; to authorise deprivation of her liberty; and to authorise the use of forced entry and "necessary restraint".

.
.
.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/motherofsix-with-learning-disabilities-could-be-sterilised-after-authorities-ask-court-for-permission-to-force-entry-into-her-home-10018414.html

Whiskey... Tango... Foxtrot...

So, in the UK, it has come to THIS??? I am outraged.

No wonder Es99 left the UK for Canada if the UK is doing sh** like this!

This is something, quite frankly, you might have expected to see in NAZI Germany.

...

Es99 is muddying the waters playing the feminist card

There's a feminist card?

where she suggests that boys are expected to be a bit of a lad, but nice girls are expected not to. That is a separate issue to this one. Yes it takes two to become pregnant, and rightfully both should take equal responsibility for it. But in the real world if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, jack the lad can do a runner, it is the female that is left with the baby and possible birth. Mother nature decided that the woman would be the baby carrier not the man, woman = womb-man i.e. a man with a womb. So don't blame men for natures decision. In a parallel universe it could be the men having the babies.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Cue 99% of women wanting to go and live there !!!

Plenty of women are happy having babies. So 99% seems a little high. Feminism is about women having choices. Not becoming men.

Because of all that there seems this view in the world at large, that the onus on preventing unwanted pregnancies is left more to the woman than the man. I think that is wrong, but it is the way it is. How we change that is for another thread.

Oh and finally, I have replied to Es99 via PM regarding 11/12 year olds on the pill. The information that I have is strictly private and I am not willing to make it public.

No one will hear it from me.

However, your point does not change what I said. I've taught many many teenage girls and often know more about their personal lives than their parents do. I know that the average age that someone loses their virginity is still about 16 or 17 and anyone that tells you otherwise is probably lying...and I can tell you that teenagers lie a lot for various reasons.

I can also tell you that if a 11/12 year old is having sex she is probably being pressured into it by someone. How do we prevent that? By talking openly with our children. By teaching boys to be respectful. By teaching girls to respect themselves and not worry about being disliked because they say no.

I am afraid I've heard too many stories about girls being emotionally blackmailed by their boyfriends into having sex when they weren't ready and didn't really want to. Or being lied to about the risks.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Just a Family Experience.

One of my Wife's Niece's (they are close) had to make that decision, some years ago. The Family was informed of the 'situation'.

Some advised that the child must be aborted, and some advised in the opposite.

Most, including my Wife and I, just gave support to her and her husband, regarding any decision they make. They now have Loving, and Loved, Child.

This is an Intensely Personal decision, and support must be given to any decision made.

Agreed totally. Only the parents of the child can know the true impact of their decision and they are the ones that have to mange the consequences.

---

Reality Internet Personality

If we are talking about a Downs child, then yes I am happy to give it a +2

Just a Family Experience.

One of my Wife's Niece's (they are close) had to make that decision, some years ago. The Family was informed of the 'situation'.

Some advised that the child must be aborted, and some advised in the opposite.

Most, including my Wife and I, just gave support to her and her husband, regarding any decision they make. They now have Loving, and Loved, Child.

This is an Intensely Personal decision, and support must be given to any decision made.

Once in a while you say something I can fully agree with. This is one of those times. +1

Oops, I hadn't noticed you edited your post. Here is my reply to the rest of it.

The media outlets with an agenda to push immediately went out and found parents (largely mothers it appeared) with Down's babies to say that they loved their child and how dare Dawkins say he should have been aborted. As though Dawkins were proposing euthanising everyone with Down's. (Spoiler: he wasn't.)
None of them were asked how much harder their lives had become having to care for their disabled child. Also whether given the choice beforehand, would they not rather have a healthy child than a disabled one. (Which is what Dawkins was implying when he suggested "abort it and try again" on Twitter.)

No, you are right, Dawkins didn't suggest we should euthanize people with Down and yes, a life with a child that has Down can certainly be harder. Although it should be noted that Down can vary in 'intensity'. Not all people with Down are riddled with secondary health issues, and some of them can even, with proper encouragement, achieve quite a bit of intellectual and personal success. There is the case of a Spanish man with Down who went on to become a movie star in Spain and graduated from University with a degree in Psychology. This particular example makes me wonder how many people with Down could achieve much much more in life but don't because society has zero expectations of them, and would never bother to push or encourage them to do more.

The problem with what Dawkins said is that it is an absolute value judgement. He calls not aborting 'immoral' meaning that parents who do not abort their baby with Down are 'immoral' and therefor wrong. He judges them, and at the same time, he judges every child born with Down as sort of a mistake. This attitude I find to be completely reprehensible. Its not his decision and I think he is a giant dirtbag (I actually want to use a much stronger curse word here, but that would be against the site rules ;) ) for so callously judging other people's decision, and devaluing the lives of those born with Down.

I'm not a woman (as you may have noticed) but i think that if i were in that situation, faced with the choice between a long period caring for a disabled child, or an abortion at a time before it becomes a risky proposition, i would go for the abortion. Yes, it might be a bit distressing at the time, but less so than two decades of palliative care. But that's my opinion, i don't have personal experience and never will.

I dont think anyone here is saying that you can't or shouldn't be allowed to choose to abort a child with Down. Again, the only problem I have here with Dawkins is the fact that he puts it in such an absolute way, basically telling people that according to him, people should always abort a child with down. Its not his decision to make, nor is it his place to judge people who decide to keep their child with Down. Yet he does so, and I think that makes him no better than the people that say that abortion is immoral.

Yes, it might be a bit distressing at the time, but less so than two decades of palliative care.

Ooops careful Simon. That reminds me of the UK TV series "Men Behaving Badly" where Gary (Martin Clunes) is discussing childbirth with Tony (Neil Morrissey) and Gary says "It might smart a bit I grant you!". In my view an abortion for a woman must be the most painful emotional and physical situation possible.

Dawkins is allowed to have an opinion as is everybody. Whether or not that opinion carries any weight is another matter altogether.

I would not blame any woman for choosing to abort a known Downs baby, and I can well imagine the turmoil in her mind before coming to that decision. Mother nature can be very cruel at times.

Richard Dawkins says it would be immoral not to abort, others disagree. Downs

Richard Dawkins is a blatant sexist but more importantly, he's not a parent of someone with Down. He is in no position to tell people what to do or judge them afterwards. Really, telling people its immoral not to abort their baby is just as horrible as someone who tells people it is immoral to abort.

Is he not allowed to have an opinion?

He is allowed to have an opinion, but he needs to realize that since he is not someone who has to face the decision to abort a fetus with Down syndrome, this discussion is not about him. He has no stakes in it, therefor what he thinks about it is purely academic. On top of that, his opinion is extremely judgmental and condescending. Its easy to say that the moral imperative is to abort fetuses with Down when you are a guy and not a parent who actually has to face that choice.