UK leads war against dysgenics as man with learning difficulties forcibly sterilized - Polidicks

[quote]A High Court judge has sanctioned the sterilisation of a man "in his best interests" in a landmark legal ruling. The 36-year-old, from the Midlands, has learning difficulties and already has a son, born in 2010, with his girlfriend. Mrs Justice Eleanor King ruled that a vasectomy could take place after hearing that another child could cause the man "psychological harm". Experts said he was capable of sexual consent but did not have the capacity to make decisions about contraception. They said the man, referred to as DE, could not be relied upon to use condoms or other birth control methods effectively to prevent pregnancy. The Court of Protection in London has heard that DE does not want to become a father again.[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23721893[/url] This is a remarkable precedent.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, on one had I feel as if it's wrong for a government to decide who can reproduce but on the other I really wish alot of people woundn't.

Sounds a lot like what the Nazis in Germany wanted to do during their glory days.

[QUOTE=Limed00d;41859866]Sounds a lot like what the Nazi party wanted to do.[/QUOTE] Actually many countries practiced eugenics before the Nazis came along. It was considered the bleeding edge of progressivism. Then the Nazis came along and gave it a bad name.

[quote]The Court of Protection in London has heard that DE does not want to become a father again.[/quote] If he does not want to become a father again, and is unable to have the capacity to make decisions about child contraception then what's wrong with this? Its not like they decided he shouldn't be able to have kids because he has learning difficulties and just sterilised him to stop his genes spreading. Talk about a sensationalist fucking headline

If you re-order the quotes it seems slightly more reasonable. [quote] The Court of Protection in London has heard that DE does not want to become a father again. They said the man, referred to as DE, could not be relied upon to use condoms or other birth control methods effectively to prevent pregnancy. Experts said he was capable of sexual consent but did not have the capacity to make decisions about contraception. [/quote]

This has nothing to do with dysgenics. Did you even read the entire article?

Am I reading this right, or did he not want children, but couldn't make decisions that would prevent the children, so his social worker and parents gave the go ahead for a vascetomy, and not a universal 'ban handicap sex'

[QUOTE=UzumakaiPatch;41859899]This has nothing to do with dysgenics. Did you even read the entire article?[/QUOTE] It sets an important precedent.

This is not eugenics you fiddledoodlies. They didn't castrate a man to keep his genes from spreading, they castrated man to keep unwanted babies from being born. [editline]16th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=(~_^);41859951]It sets an important precedent.[/QUOTE] No, it doesn't. The reasoning behind castration is that they are trying to prevent his persona from behind burdened with having more children, which he admittedly can't handle. His genes aren't the reason, his inability of self control, is.

uh... I'm at a loss for words after reading this thread.

[QUOTE=(~_^);41859951]It sets an important precedent.[/QUOTE] Not really, given that the circumstances in this case were so unusual. No one was opposed to the vasectomy, it's just that he didn't have the capacity to make a decision for himself

[QUOTE=(~_^);41859951]It sets an important precedent.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. "The Court of Protection in London has heard that the DE does not want to become a father again. But he could not be relied upon to use condoms or other birth control methods effectively to prevent pregnancy, the court was told." If someone has stated they want something but does not have the cognitive faculties to ensure they get that, I believe it is perfectly fine for outside intervention that leads to their preferred outcome.

I know i'm going to get a dumb tsumani but i'm okay with things like this. We don't want people with downs or other disformities to spread their harmful genes do we?

Better title: "UK leads war against unwanted children by giving willing man a vasectomy"

Why are people moaning [quote] The Court of Protection in London has heard that DE does not want to become a father again. [/quote] He doesn't want to be a father again but he can't make the decision himself, so what is wrong with this? At the end of the day it is what he appears to want.

[QUOTE=Nitro-Trucker;41860005]I know i'm going to get a dumb tsumani but i'm okay with things like this. We don't want people with downs or other disformities to spread their harmful genes do we?[/QUOTE] to be honest if we had that rule going about before you were born, you wouldn't exist

Man, this is such a complicated and touchy issue. I just don't know what is right on this one. It could get out of hand very easily, and I am going to say now that selective breeding in the human population is not OK That being said the world might be better off if programs like this do exist. Who get's to decide the level of retardation(or however you want to sugar coat it) that get's you sterilized and what about the people who are riding that line? This is a very complicated issue that needs further discussing I think.

[QUOTE=Antlerp;41860040]to be honest if we had that rule going about before you were born, you wouldn't exist[/QUOTE] aww an unprovoked personal attack! The autist is offended it seems. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("trolling" - postal))[/highlight] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("alt of permabanned users" - postal))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Nitro-Trucker;41860005]I know i'm going to get a dumb tsumani but i'm okay with things like this. We don't want people with downs or other disformities to spread their harmful genes do we?[/QUOTE] yo this news isn't an example of eugenics and i'm personally conflicted about it but you're probably gonna get dumbed because you're a Nazi and it's kind of scary how all you bastards are coming out of the woodwork now

[QUOTE=(~_^);41859951]It sets an important precedent.[/QUOTE] He wanted to receive a vasectomy (which is reversible) as he determined himself unable to have the capacity of understanding the full circumstances of contraception. All the court did to allow him to do so. This is an important precedent of voluntary sterilization in special cases like this but this is not eugenics of any kind. The UK government will condemn any forcible sterilization.

[QUOTE=Mastermind of42;41860106]He wanted to receive a vasectomy (which is reversible) as he determined himself unable to have the capacity of understanding the full circumstances of contraception. All the court did to allow him to do so. This is an important precedent of voluntary sterilization in special cases like this but this is not eugenics of any kind. The UK government will condemn any forcible sterilization.[/QUOTE] That's what I get for not reading the whole article, still, it makes you ponder these very important questions. Eventually we are going to have to make these decisions, like it or not.

[QUOTE=Nitro-Trucker;41860078]aww an unprovoked personal attack! The autist is offended it seems.[/QUOTE] the point i'm making is that everyone has genetic deformities and no one is genetically perfect. now it's unknown to me whether you are host to a massive array of deformities or not, but from your insecure post you probably are

[QUOTE=Nitro-Trucker;41860005]I know i'm going to get a dumb tsumani but i'm okay with things like this. We don't want people with downs or other disformities to spread their harmful genes do we?[/QUOTE] Down's Syndrome prevents reproduction. And not all deformities are hereditary.

[QUOTE=Nitro-Trucker;41860078]aww an unprovoked personal attack! The autist is offended it seems.[/QUOTE] If you spew pro-eugenics bullshit, yeah, it's provoked.

Congratulations on not even reading the article you're posting

[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;41860166]Down's Syndrome prevents reproduction. And not all deformities are hereditary.[/QUOTE] It doesn't entirely prevent reproduction. Women with Down's Syndrome can still have children if they're fertile (rare), and they don't have a miscarriage or premature birth. It's still very rare for someone with Down's Syndrome to have a child, and if they do there's a 50% chance the child will/wont have the condition.

Honestly, if we can try to keep certain terrible hereditary diseases out of the gene pool we should. The problem there lay in how do we check for these things and getting public acceptance. I don't think many people want mandatory DNA tests to label themselves as defective in some way or another. The choice between genetic engineering and selective breeding are bother rather disliked for bad things that could happen or the ways people could use them to their own self-centered image.

[QUOTE=Jdeedler;41860271]Honestly, if we can try to keep [b]certain terrible hereditary diseases[/b] out of the gene pool we should. But the problem there lay in how do we check for these things and getting public acceptance. I don't think many people want mandatory DNA tests to label themselves as defective in some way or another. The choice between genetic engineering and selective breeding are bother rather disliked for bad things that could happen or the ways people could use them to their own self-centered image.[/QUOTE] There's a problem with where you draw that line though. One could say Hitler had exactly the same mindset (I'm not taking any position here).

Who would want to fuck one of those freaks anyway?