Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow...that's f'ed up....it is scary that some tyrant in a robe thinks he has the right to order someone to get an abortion....
The eugenicistt judge whose ruling was over-ruled was a she.
Quote:
The ruling reverses a decision by Family and Probate Court Judge Christina Harms, who found that the 32-year-old woman was not competent to decide whether to get an abortion.
Harms found the woman would choose to end her pregnancy if she were competent and agreed to appoint her parents as guardians “for the purpose of consenting to the extraordinary procedures of abortion and sterilization,” the Appeals Court said.
What a terrible situation for the family to be in. Not only having to care for a mentally ill adult but any children she bears. I suppose they can just place them for adoption but the whole problem of the mother having to stop her med or cause harm the child makes it more difficult. I'd say some discussion, while she is ON MEDS, about sterilization is in order. Hopefully there is nothing hereditary about this either!
Does the woman have the financial ability to raise the child? Or even the mental capacity?
Or is the child going to end up in the welfare system and medicare system being taken care of by the taxpayers?
After having this baby whats to stop her from getting pregnant again? Putting another great burden on taxpayers?
Society cant afford to be paying for such religious stupidity.
Does the woman have the financial ability to raise the child? Or even the mental capacity?
Or is the child going to end up in the welfare system and medicare system being taken care of by the taxpayers?
After having this baby whats to stop her from getting pregnant again? Putting another great burden on taxpayers?
Society cant afford to be paying for such religious stupidity.
I agree.
I do not see having a child as a "sacred right"......no matter what.
When someone is permanently, mentally disabled and can never care for a child, I see no problem with the parents or caregivers having them sterilized.
On the one hand, people say they have a right to have a child, on the other hand, they have no problem taking that child away from them the minute they are born.
How can you justify taking a child away from the parent when the parent has never harmed a child? Until that parent HAS harmed a child, don't they have just as much right to keep their child as anyone else?
Isn't it a double standard to on the one hand protect their right to have a child, and then on the other hand automatically take away their right to parent that child?
They are innocent of child neglect or child abuse until they have actually committed the crime.....yet it is justfied to presume them guilty before the fact?
Allowing the mentally disabled the right to procreate unrestricted is not good for that person, the child, the caregivers or society.....period.
Society needs to get over this dogma that procreating is a "sacred right".....it isn't. It is nothing more than a biological function.
I can't help but think of this woman's parents. They're already raising her son and now they have to make the difficult choice of raising a second grandchild or putting the kid up for adoption. Three of my relatives adopted out their babies and each one of them spent the rest of their lives with such regret. And the other option is hard, raising 2 children during your 'golden' years. My heart goes out to this woman's parents.
In contrast to the spinning CNBC, CNN and MSNBC do with the truth? Seriously, it has to do with the story, not the source. There's a reason this judge stepped down (retired) just a few days after this ruling. Maybe the judge should be forced to become her guardian (nanny), that would certainly make all the other judges think before handing down such rulings.
It has nothing to do with the premise of the OP.
Hence, my comment.
This woman has schizophrenia and bipolar disorder? Is she fully-functioning? Since her parents take care of the child she already has, I'd guess no.
Don't know if I missed it, but how old are her parents? Why are they forced to care for the offspring of this woman? What will happen to the children if something happens to the grandparents?
If you suffer from a mental disorder (in this case two!) that precludes you from taking care of your children, then you shouldn't be allowed to have them.Period.
While I don't agree with a forced abortion, I do think this woman should be sterilized ASAP!
Ironically enough, I know a woman who is bi-polar and she had to stop taking her meds when she was pregnant. She went absolutely nuts! Not even joking...it was really bad. Her partner essentially became a single Dad because she ran off and was gone for months. She finally came back (looking like a broke down crackhead) and after a few months of being on meds, she was better. But it was soooooooooo scary to witness. Can't imagine how this will turn out with a woman that is bipolar and schizophrenic!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until that parent HAS harmed a child, don't they have just as much right to keep their child as anyone else?
