Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

More Eugenics

Following on from the recently discussed case of a man with a “learning disability” being forced by law to be celibate, via the scary Star Chamber we call the “Court Of Protection”, we now have a young woman with a “learning disability” facing compulsory sterilisation.

I wonder who the Court Of Protection is really intended to protect.

14 Comments

  1. JuliaM says:

    I know who it isn’t working for. And that’s the people who really, really need it.

  2. berenike says:

    But the first person you mention was engaging in homosexual activity, so is preventing him from doing so “eugenics”?

  3. Lynne says:

    So presumably, if this person is forcibly sterilised, she can then indulge in matters carnal because she can’t get pregnant? But a man of limited mental capacity can’t have sex, not even if he is in a homosexual relationship?

    The court isn’t working for the unborn child either since it appears it also advocates state enforced abortion.

    So, more grease has been poured onto the slippery slope…

    Holy Hitler’s ghost, Batman!

  4. JuliaM says:

    “But the first person you mention was engaging in homosexual activity, so is preventing him from doing so “eugenics”?”

    Technically, no. So let’s call it what it is – a monstrous abuse of their human rights.

  5. Ian B says:

    Well berenike, I think eugenics as a term covers both cases. I see all this as part of the same ideology that GK Chesterton was deploring a century ago. Eugenic ideology isn’t purely the mechanics of breeding, it covers the whole sphere of the State defining who is “feeble minded” and presuming a right to arbitrarily ignore their human rights.

    As another general point, the inconsistency pointed out by Lynne is typical of this kind of Progressivist interference. Another interesting example for me of that inconsistency was NuLab’s 2003 Sexual Whatevers Act, the one that lowered the gay age of consent to 16. It simulataneously raised the age of consent for a girl to pose for Page 3 to 18, retroactively declaring many pictures of Sam Fox et al “kiddie porn”. So, a 16 year old boy was declared by the act to be sexually responsible, but a 16 year old girl was declared unfit to make the much lesser choice of taking her top off. With the recent cartoon porn bill, it got even sillier. NuLab had effectively made a point of making it legal to go out and seduce a 16 year old boy, but if I draw a picture of it, I go to jail as a dangerous predator…

  6. NickM says:

    Ian B makes a very good point. I personally find it farcical that a movie which features simulated sex gets an 18 rating yet 16 year olds can have real live sex.

    And yeah, Sam Fox as kiddie porn… Lordy! That’s my youth as a peado then.

    berenike,
    Obviously the case of “Alan” I posted on is not eugenics in the sense of breeding a “master race” or such but it has the same whiff of brimstone about it.

    Lynne,
    I don’t regard this as more grease on the slippery slope – we’re already in the skid-pan…

    “The court can also order “terminations of pregnancy” for women who lack capacity to consent, as well as “experimental or innovative treatment” and medical procedures that require the use of force to restrain the patient.”

    (a) The entire defence of abortion rights is based on the concept of an individual woman’s right to chose and that right trumping the right of an embryo. It is not based upon the right of a court.

    (b) “Use of force” – need I say more?

    (c) Experimental treatments on the mentally incapable. I thought we fought a very big war against those fuckers.

  7. Ian B says:

    “Use of force to restrain the patient” is so fucking chilling, I don’t have the words.

    Some day in the future, people are going to write about the horrors we accepted in this primitive age, like we say about witch burnings or the lobotomy craze, they really are.

  8. NickM says:

    Ian,
    A few years back there was a case where a woman in labour was sectioned under some mental health act. She had insisted on a natural birth. The docs said we gotta do a C-section if mother and baby are to have a chance. She said no. They sectioned her (in both senses) without consent. There was no evidence that she was in the slightest sense mentally ill. Her only “sin” was to not accept medical advice and for that she was coshed and cut.

  9. Paul Marks says:

    We are back to the horrors of the Progressive movement – in Britain now.

    We need judges like Justice Pierce Butler. In my view Butler was the greatest American Supreme Court Justice of the 20th century – he was not afraid to be in a minority of one if he was ruling in line with the princples of law (not the fashions of the moment). For example, what the United States Constitution actually said – not what powerful people would like it to say.

    But we need them to write more – not just vote against the horrors.

    A British example of what I am talking about (from the same time period) would be Chief Justice Hewart – see his “The New Despotism” (1929). His protest against the modern Progressive executive state.

  10. JuliaM says:

    ““Use of force to restrain the patient” is so fucking chilling, I don’t have the words…”

    Pretty sure there was a case last year where the Court ruled that a mentally-subnormal adult with a hospital phobia should be sedated so treatment could be given without her consent.

    That war we fought? We shouldn’t have bothered…

  11. berenike says:

    The law already says one thing about abortion if the child is disabled and another if it’s not – this is making things consistent, distinguishing between cases where the mother is disabled and those where she’s not.

  12. NickM says:

    berenike,
    Does it? My understanding is abortion is effectively on demand up till 24 weeks. Abortions after that can be allowed in the case of severe disability (though that is gameable) but are actually very rare.

  13. berenike says:

    I said the law has different standards.

    Here’s a quick summary and an extract from the relevant act.

    “there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped” is on its own sufficent ground for a legal abortion at any point in the pregnancy.

    De facto, and despite what the law says, abortion is pretty much on demand up to 24 weeks, and late abortions are carried out on the grounds of cleft palate or club foot.

  14. berenike says:

    (sorry about late comment, thought i’d posted a reply)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: