NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the parents of a 22 year old man who has the mental age of a seven year old have the rights to steralise him in case he gets a girlfriend pregnant?

Edit: If you want a link to the news story this thread is based on, here it is.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4596493.stm

If he has a mental age of seven, he doesn't have much chance of getting a Girl friend though.

Should the parents of a 22 year old man who has the mental age of a seven year old have the rights to steralise him in case he gets a girlfriend pregnant?
Thank you for bringing up a question worth arguing over.
*gets popcorn*
Vote added.

If he has a mental age of seven, he doesn't have much chance of getting a Girl friend though.
According to his parents he does.

Thank you for bringing up a question worth arguing over.
*gets popcorn*
Popcorn but no vote?

I, therefore, require links to a news source with this on, otherwise I don't know the whole debate. I thought this was hypothetical.

Should the parents of a 22 year old man who has the mental age of a seven year old have the rights to steralise him in case he gets a girlfriend pregnant?
If he has the mental competency of a 7 year old he probably has an appointed guardian I suppose it could only be done if the guardian finds it in the best interest of the 22 year old

I, therefore, require links to a news source with this on, otherwise I don't know the whole debate. I thought this was hypothetical.
By all means....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4596493.stm

Vasectomy? Sure. Let's not take the chance that he'll get a woman pregnant. He's not going to make a decent father with a mental age of 7.

Vasectomy? Sure. Let's not take the chance that he'll get a woman pregnant. He's not going to make a decent father with a mental age of 7.
In your opinion then, is it right for that same man's parents to vote for him in the next election? Or how about chopping off Tony Blair's ears so he can't pass on the big-ear gene?

They seem to be worried about precedent with the hysterectomy case.

However, a vasectomy does not have the incredible hormonal effect that a hysterectomy does. Should he ever mature to a point where he is competent to make his own decisions, he could have a vasectomy reversed.

Yeah, I think I'm going to go with yes on this one. His guardians can make that decision, as they are the ones who would be responsible in his stead in the event that there was a child

I really must wonder though - if he has the mental age of a seven year old, how interested in sex is he really?

Sure. With the growing survivability rate of people with defective genes that would have been lethal 50 years ago it's a good thing that some are being weeded out (although they aren't lethal in this case I won't miss 'em).

It's not like he'll be tortured. A simple snip. His life won't be changed for the worse.

EDIT

Lets me make a point that I'm not for FORCED sterilization.

In your opinion then, is it right for that same man's parents to vote for him in the next election? Or how about chopping off Tony Blair's ears so he can't pass on the big-ear gene?
Vote for the seven year old 22 year old guy? No, I don't think anybody who's mentally retarded should be allowed to run for election.

Big-ear gene, as far as I know, doesn't affect one's ability to make decisions or understand current events. Also, chopping the ears off does nothing to the genes.

and all men make 'deacent fathers' no matter what their mental age?

for that matter define a 'deacent father'?

So lets say he has a child with his girlfriend, who obviously loves him and understands his disability, lets say, hypothetically that she is quite happy to work to support them, and they hire a carer to assist with both the child and him. Lets say he loves that child with all the fierceness that a child is capable of, plays with it and gives it both his attention and love in such a way that a full time working father cannot do for whatever reason, lets say that child grows up discovering that even his father, who some would say is incapable of a 'normal' life, is indeed capable of love, and that there are people who can accept others for their differences and strengths no matter what society may say about them.

How blessed would that child be to grow up with such a knowledge from its own experience?

of course I'm sure it won't all be roses and there may well be difficulties, often imposed upon the familly by society. But hey, thats a little thing called life, its not always rosy and its not always easy.

If he really has a mental age of six or seven, it would be irresponsible and abusive for his parents to let him get into that kind of a relationship anyway. Personally, I'd be more worried about someone who "can't take care of himself" being in an adult relationship than about the possible passing on of a genetic disorder.

Sure. With the growing survivability rate of people with defective genes that would have been lethal 50 years ago it's a good thing that some are being weeded out (although they aren't lethal in this case I won't miss 'em).

It's not like he'll be tortured. A simple snip. His life won't be changed for the worse.

EDIT

Lets me make a point that I'm not for FORCED sterilization.

Well he is gonna GET a forced steralisation if his parents are allowed to do this - so would you abort a child with Downs Syndrome then? - A disability with which the child lives a full life and plays a fantastic part in family/community life - brings families together...I'll tell you what, shall I just kill my brother? He has Downs, perhaps a man (20yr old) with a 4 year old mentality should not exist? Is that what you are saying?

I really must wonder though - if he has the mental age of a seven year old, how interested in sex is he really?

Look at his body though, he is a 22 year old. His hormones are still there - it is the hormone not the brain that tells you you want sex.

Vote for the seven year old 22 year old guy? No, I don't think anybody who's mentally retarded should be allowed to run for election.

Big-ear gene, as far as I know, doesn't affect one's ability to make decisions or understand current events. Also, chopping the ears off does nothing to the genes.
I meant use his vote. Not for him to run for election. Use his Postal Vote or whatever you call it. I was just making a point with the ear thing....i.e. how far in the past are you??? People with disabilities can lead a life more full than people without, simply because, in my experience, they actually live life to the full.

Look at his body though, he is a 22 year old. His hormones are still there - it is the hormone not the brain that tells you you want sex.

It is a combination, really. Most seven year olds are repulsed by the very thought of sex. Adults who are similarly repulsed will generally not have sex, regardless of their hormones.

It is a combination, really. Most seven year olds are repulsed by the very thought of sex. Adults who are similarly repulsed will generally not have sex, regardless of their hormones.
But if he is not repulsed, as some 7 yr olds are not (the rising number of teenage pregnancies is almost proof of that) then he will have sex.

I seriously doubt it's necessary to castrate the poor guy. He has the mind of a 7 year old, and as such he probably had no idea what sex was untill he heard his parents talking about what they wanted to do to him. IF they just kept him in the dark a while, he would never have had any interest at all in sex nor any idea what it is. He probably still doesn't know.

How do teenage pregnancies prove anything about 7-year-olds?

The age of 7 can hardly be considered "teen-age".

and all men make 'deacent fathers' no matter what their mental age?

for that matter define a 'deacent father'?

So lets say he has a child with his girlfriend, who obviously loves him and understands his disability, lets say, hypothetically that she is quite happy to work to support them, and they hire a carer to assist with both the child and him. Lets say he loves that child with all the fierceness that a child is capable of, plays with it and gives it both his attention and love in such a way that a full time working father cannot do for whatever reason, lets say that child grows up discovering that even his father, who some would say is incapable of a 'normal' life, is indeed capable of love, and that there are people who can accept others for their differences and strengths no matter what society may say about them.

How blessed would that child be to grow up with such a knowledge from its own experience?

of course I'm sure it won't all be roses and there may well be difficulties, often imposed upon the familly by society. But hey, thats a little thing called life, its not always rosy and its not always easy.
How can he teach that child what it means to be a man when he's a child? How can he teach that child what to look for in a man if it's a girl or a gay? The child may grow up happy and well adjusted, but it will always be missing a true father.

I meant use his vote. Not for him to run for election. Use his Postal Vote or whatever you call it. I was just making a point with the ear thing....i.e. how far in the past are you??? People with disabilities can lead a life more full than people without, simply because, in my experience, they actually live life to the full.
No. A mental age of 7 should not be entitled to a vote any more than a true 7 year old.

People with many disabilities can do alot. They can live full lives. People with a mental age of 7 can't. Severely retarded people can never understand the complexities of life. They cannot take full responsibilities for their actions. They cannot understand the consequences of their choices fully. Therefore they cannot be accorded the same rights as others.

Yet there's no real reason to castrate him. He still has a child's mind, and should be easily controllable. Just keep raising him normally, and only if he shows obvious interest in girls do you castrate him. (is there a method to "temporarily" streilize someone? I belive I saw this mentioned earlier.)

No. A mental age of 7 should not be entitled to a vote any more than a true 7 year old.

People with many disabilities can do alot. They can live full lives. People with a mental age of 7 can't. Severely retarded people can never understand the complexities of life. They cannot take full responsibilities for their actions. They cannot understand the consequences of their choices fully. Therefore they cannot be accorded the same rights as others.

That's right: would you trust a 7-year old with being president of anything, for example?

But if he is not repulsed, as some 7 yr olds are not (the rising number of teenage pregnancies is almost proof of that) then he will have sex.

Of course, anyone who had sex with him who was not, themselves, a child, would be guilty of rape, as this man would be unable to ever provide informed consent.

As for all the "castration" comments, no one is talking about castration. A vasectomy does not keep a man from becoming aroused or having sex - it just keeps him from impregnating anyone. No part of the penis is actually cut off - there are simply some tubes inside that are. And, it is actually a reversible process.

How can he teach that child what it means to be a man when he's a child? How can he teach that child what to look for in a man if it's a girl or a gay? The child may grow up happy and well adjusted, but it will always be missing a true father.

Why should anyone need to be 'taught what it means to be a man'? or told 'what to look for'? I know I certainly haven't followed how my father would have liked me to 'turn out'... does that mean he failed in his upbringing of me?

and what is a 'True Father'? Are you going to tell every man how he is to raise his children now? Are you going to tell every women are that they must raise a child when the father has abandoned her? Or that she MUST get an abortion because the child is missing a father?

This child would have A father, and a mother, and they would both love it, surely thats a whole lot more then a lot of kids get.

Yet there's no real reason to castrate him. He still has a child's mind, and should be easily controllable. Just keep raising him normally, and only if he shows obvious interest in girls do you castrate him. (is there a method to "temporarily" streilize someone? I belive I saw this mentioned earlier.)
Nobody's talking about castration. Vasectomy will sterilize him and leave him with all his other physical functions intact.

No. A mental age of 7 should not be entitled to a vote any more than a true 7 year old.

People with many disabilities can do alot. They can live full lives. People with a mental age of 7 can't. Severely retarded people can never understand the complexities of life. They cannot take full responsibilities for their actions. They cannot understand the consequences of their choices fully. Therefore they cannot be accorded the same rights as others.
Says who? My Brother (who apparently has the mental age of about 4) had a girlfriend with Downs (mental age of about 6/7) but she had a mental clarity that i don't think anyone with a so called 'normal' mentality has/had. Plus i was talking about his parents voting FOR him.

Of course, anyone who had sex with him who was not, themselves, a child, would be guilty of rape, as this man would be unable to ever provide informed consent.

As for all the "castration" comments, no one is talking about castration. A vasectomy does not keep a man from becoming aroused or having sex - it just keeps him from impregnating anyone. No part of the penis is actually cut off - there are simply some tubes inside that are. And, it is actually a reversible process.
Exactly any sex with Gavin would indeed be legal (vulnerable adults act if I remember right)

If he has a mental age of seven, he doesn't have much chance of getting a Girl friend though.

Exactly. I have an IQ of 118 and I still can't seem to get a girlfriend. I find it hard to believe he would have much of a chance of it. He would have an IQ of around 32 according to my calculations (mental age 7 divided by physical age 22).

Sorry about calling it castration, I just wasn't paying attention.

As for the rights for sterilizing him, it's definately up to his parents, because they know him better than anyone on these boards, and it's completely up to them to decide what happens to their son.

Legally, he's over 18, an adult, and should have a say in what procedures are done to him.

Morally, he thinks like a 7 year old and is therefore incapable of taking the necessary precautions.

Mentally retarded people have normal sex drives (I know, I worked with a whole bunch of horny mentally retarded people when I was 16, the guys were scary sometimes), but sterilising him would only make him unable to impregnant someone, not stop him from doing stuff. It's dependant on what caused the disability. Is it Down's Syndrome? Or is it due to brain injury? One means he's genetically disposed to passing on defective genetics to the next generation, the other means he has the ability to father healthy, normal children.
Most likely, the children he father's will be with another mentally disabled person, no 'normal' person would have sex with him. And the child is put up for adoption and taken into a loving home with parents who have been desperate for children for many years. And childbirth will have scared them both so much, they'll never want to have sex again....so why force something like this on him?

and IQ has such an impact on getting a partner? I know some ridiculously intelligent people that are single, because they're a*seholes!

oh and to whoever said 'disabled people don't understand the consequences of their actions' I'd like to say a very loud B*LLSH*T

I have seen my cousin run his electric wheelchair over someone foot and quite happilly laugh because he knew precisely what he was doing, the kid can't write, spell or speak, has very little motor reflexes, but he's got a wicked sense of humour, and loves rollorcoasters.

Why should anyone need to be 'taught what it means to be a man'? or told 'what to look for'? I know I certainly haven't followed how my father would have liked me to 'turn out'... does that mean he failed in his upbringing of me?

and what is a 'True Father'? Are you going to tell every man how he is to raise his children now? Are you going to tell every women are that they must raise a child when the father has abandoned her? Or that she MUST get an abortion because the child is missing a father?

This child would have A father, and a mother, and they would both love it, surely thats a whole lot more then a lot of kids get.
1 Male children need a strong and decent male rolemodel from day 1. They need to be taught what being a man is about. Let's face it. Women can and do raise kids alone. It's not the optimal situation. Boys raised by single mothers have a much higher rate of criminal behavior. They're trying on the roles that society shows them in movies and magazines (often the role of a ganster) because they don't have a real father to show them that being a man isn't about taking what you want at the expense of others, but rather taking responsibility as a provider, protector, and leader.

2 It's not my place to tell people how to raise their kids. If it were this world would be a much better place. Just because you can do it (raise a child in a single parent home) doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. (to paraphrase from Chris Rock's comedy act)

3 What do you have against fathers? You think a retarded guy is just as good in the role as a person of average intelligence or better. That seems to indicate that you don't hold the position of father in high regard. I see this as a big indicator of the decline in our culture.

Legally, he's over 18, an adult, and should have a say in what procedures are done to him.

Morally, he thinks like a 7 year old and is therefore incapable of taking the necessary precautions.

Mentally retarded people have normal sex drives (I know, I worked with a whole bunch of horny mentally retarded people when I was 16, the guys were scary sometimes), but sterilising him would only make him unable to impregnant someone, not stop him from doing stuff. It's dependant on what caused the disability. Is it Down's Syndrome? Or is it due to brain injury? One means he's genetically disposed to passing on defective genetics to the next generation, the other means he has the ability to father healthy, normal children.
Most likely, the children he father's will be with another mentally disabled person, no 'normal' person would have sex with him. And the child is put up for adoption and taken into a loving home with parents who have been desperate for children for many years. And childbirth will have scared them both so much, they'll never want to have sex again....so why force something like this on him?
The article was provided … Genetic disorder with roughly 50 percent chance of passing it on

Sorry about calling it castration, I just wasn't paying attention.

As for the rights for sterilizing him, it's definately up to his parents, because they know him better than anyone on these boards, and it's completely up to them to decide what happens to their son.
Ok, say....I have a son, he is seven. I'm worried that the gene that makes him fat/big-eared/mentally handicapped/asthmatic will pass on to his child when he's old enough - do I then have the right to steralise him temporarily or not?

Says who? My Brother (who apparently has the mental age of about 4) had a girlfriend with Downs (mental age of about 6/7) but she had a mental clarity that i don't think anyone with a so called 'normal' mentality has/had. Plus i was talking about his parents voting FOR him.
My first comment said that anyone with a mental age of 7 shouldn't get a vote to begin with, so there's no danger of his parents using his vote.

Good for your brother and his girlfriend. Still they're not fully cognizant of the full consequences of their decisions, nor are they able to effectively weigh the pros and cons of difficult choices.

and IQ has such an impact on getting a partner? I know some ridiculously intelligent people that are single, because they're a*seholes!

oh and to whoever said 'disabled people don't understand the consequences of their actions' I'd like to say a very loud B*LLSH*T

I have seen my cousin run his electric wheelchair over someone foot and quite happilly laugh because he knew precisely what he was doing, the kid can't write, spell or speak, has very little motor reflexes, but he's got a wicked sense of humour, and loves rollorcoasters.
Just because he has a good sense of humor does not mean he is mentally competent to make that sort of decision for themselves for the same reason minors cant. Many 7 year olds would find that funny (running over foot) but that does not make them competent to vote or consent to sex or make legally binding contracts.

Ok, say....I have a son, he is seven. I'm worried that the gene that makes him fat/big-eared/mentally handicapped/asthmatic will pass on to his child when he's old enough - do I then have the right to steralise him temporarily or not?
If he is of the physical age of 7 he does not have the physical setup to impregnate someone

If he is of the physical age of 7 he does not have the physical setup to impregnate someone
But he will eventually (hypothetically) - I am scared that he will pass on asthma say to his child.

Good for your brother and his girlfriend. Still they're not fully cognizant of the full consequences of their decisions, nor are they able to effectively weigh the pros and cons of difficult choices.

Like I said, she knew what she was doing, she understood what she was doing, what she could do, what people did to her - she understood everything, far more clearly than anyone i've ever known.

The article was provided … Genetic disorder with roughly 50 percent chance of passing it on

Sorry, but I was just basing my reply on a hypothetical situation, explaining on what I believeshould be allowed happen in general.

I still stick to my point of view though, that this is an immoral act, this should not be allowed, and I know very few doctors who would do it without at least explaining what would happen during and after the procedure to the patient. Hell, even a kid knows what an operation is going to do for them!

Sorry, but I was just basing my reply on a hypothetical situation, explaining on what I believeshould be allowed happen in general.

I still stick to my point of view though, that this is an immoral act, this should not be allowed, and I know very few doctors who would do it without at least explaining what would happen during and after the procedure to the patient. Hell, even a kid knows what an operation is going to do for them!
Exactly, and this is a kid that has had 22 years experience of being a kid.

1 Male children need a strong and decent male rolemodel from day 1. They need to be taught what being a man is about. Let's face it. Women can and do raise kids alone. It's not the optimal situation. Boys raised by single mothers have a much higher rate of criminal behavior. They're trying on the roles that society shows them in movies and magazines (often the role of a ganster) because they don't have a real father to show them that being a man isn't about taking what you want at the expense of others, but rather taking responsibility as a provider, protector, and leader.

2 It's not my place to tell people how to raise their kids. If it were this world would be a much better place. Just because you can do it (raise a child in a single parent home) doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. (to paraphrase from Chris Rock's comedy act)

3 What do you have against fathers? You think a retarded guy is just as good in the role as a person of average intelligence or better. That seems to indicate that you don't hold the position of father in high regard. I see this as a big indicator of the decline in our culture.

And here we have, ladies and gentlemen, a perfect example of medieval man's thinking.

1 Male children need a strong and decent male rolemodel from day 1. They need to be taught what being a man is about. Let's face it. Women can and do raise kids alone. It's not the optimal situation. Boys raised by single mothers have a much higher rate of criminal behavior. They're trying on the roles that society shows them in movies and magazines (often the role of a ganster) because they don't have a real father to show them that being a man isn't about taking what you want at the expense of others, but rather taking responsibility as a provider, protector, and leader.

2 It's not my place to tell people how to raise their kids. If it were this world would be a much better place. Just because you can do it (raise a child in a single parent home) doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. (to paraphrase from Chris Rock's comedy act)

3 What do you have against fathers? You think a retarded guy is just as good in the role as a person of average intelligence or better. That seems to indicate that you don't hold the position of father in high regard. I see this as a big indicator of the decline in our culture.

ok, I'm going to spell this out for you really lengthilly and slowly, every single issue I have with your post.

1.Male children need a strong and decent male rolemodel from day 1
need? prove it.
strong? so muscles are important in child rearing?
decent? define decency? is that just your inturpretation? is this accepted by all people everywhere?
male rolemodels - ummmm yeah right. lets stop attempted to engineer a homogeneic version of masculinity its damaging both to children and the society that they become appart of.
They need to be taught what being a man is about
and that is? let me guess, football, 'working hard and playing hard', beer, 'strong' silent types, not expressing emotion... that kind of stuff? b*llocks to the lot of it
Women can and do raise kids alone
well done... so can men, its called 'single parenting'
It's not the optimal situation
well maybe not, but people manage, its called LIFE.
Boys raised by single mothers have a much higher rate of criminal behavior
might this have more to do with their socio-economic status then by their familly life? correllation does not mean causation, you are looking at one variable and attempting to declare the cause of a behaviour from that one variable ignoring everything else
They're trying on the roles that society shows them in movies and magazines (often the role of a ganster) because they don't have a real father to show them that being a man isn't about taking what you want at the expense of others, but rather taking responsibility as a provider, protector, and leader
and being a 'woman' is all about staying home and cooking... OH wait... ITS NOT, men are quite capable of raising children, they are also quite capable of going to work, so are women, guess what kiddo, you are manufacturing and further encouraging gender stereotypes and other such lunacy.

2.It's not my place to tell people how to raise their kids
thats very true, neither is it mine.
If it were this world would be a much better place
thats a hypothesis that I am very glad I will not have the chance to disprove, let me just say that I remain skeptical
Just because you can do it (raise a child in a single parent home) doesn't mean it's the best thing to do
and the other options are?

3.What do you have against fathers?
nothing... at what point did you gain the inferance that I might have some strange father hating syndrome?
You think a retarded guy is just as good in the role as a person of average intelligence or better
I think that he has the right, same as every other human being to live his life how he wants to with minimal interferance, granted he needs additional help, but if he finds a woman who loves him then I see no reason why he should not be allowed to have a child with her, I'm making no claims as to how 'good' or 'bad' such a situation maybe, I am merely stating that many other families are in similarly less then ideal situations and they make do as best they can. You are the one who is attempting to impose your frankly bizaar concept of 'normality' and value judgements of 'good' and 'bad' upon the situation.
That seems to indicate that you don't hold the position of father in high regard
I have a great deal of respect and love for my father, I merely accept that we have differing views on a number of subjects including how my life is lived
I see this as a big indicator of the decline in our culture
wow, big one.... Define 'your' culture? why is it 'better' or 'worse' then any other form, version or type of culture? why are the changes in 'your' culture necassarilly 'bad' isn't life all about change? how can you say that any change is bad, or for that matter good? finally, why is it 'your' culture, why is it not also 'his' culture and 'my' culture, and why if that is the case, do we not have a say in 'your' version of it?

hope this has answered some of your points and raised some areas of thought for you.

ok, I'm going to spell this out for you really lengthilly and slowly, every single issue I have with your post.

1.Male children need a strong and decent male rolemodel from day 1
need? prove it.
strong? so muscles are important in child rearing?
decent? define decency? is that just your inturpretation? is this accepted by all people everywhere?
male rolemodels - ummmm yeah right. lets stop attempted to engineer a homogeneic version of masculinity its damaging both to children and the society that they become appart of.
They need to be taught what being a man is about
and that is? let me guess, football, 'working hard and playing hard', beer, 'strong' silent types, not expressing emotion... that kind of stuff? b*llocks to the lot of it
Women can and do raise kids alone
well done... so can men, its called 'single parenting'
It's not the optimal situation
well maybe not, but people manage, its called LIFE.
Boys raised by single mothers have a much higher rate of criminal behavior
might this have more to do with their socio-economic status then by their familly life? correllation does not mean causation, you are looking at one variable and attempting to declare the cause of a behaviour from that one variable ignoring everything else
They're trying on the roles that society shows them in movies and magazines (often the role of a ganster) because they don't have a real father to show them that being a man isn't about taking what you want at the expense of others, but rather taking responsibility as a provider, protector, and leader
and being a 'woman' is all about staying home and cooking... OH wait... ITS NOT, men are quite capable of raising children, they are also quite capable of going to work, so are women, guess what kiddo, you are manufacturing and further encouraging gender stereotypes and other such lunacy.

2.It's not my place to tell people how to raise their kids
thats very true, neither is it mine.
If it were this world would be a much better place
thats a hypothesis that I am very glad I will not have the chance to disprove, let me just say that I remain skeptical
Just because you can do it (raise a child in a single parent home) doesn't mean it's the best thing to do
and the other options are?

3.What do you have against fathers?
nothing... at what point did you gain the inferance that I might have some strange father hating syndrome?
You think a retarded guy is just as good in the role as a person of average intelligence or better
I think that he has the right, same as every other human being to live his life how he wants to with minimal interferance, granted he needs additional help, but if he finds a woman who loves him then I see no reason why he should not be allowed to have a child with her, I'm making no claims as to how 'good' or 'bad' such a situation maybe, I am merely stating that many other families are in similarly less then ideal situations and they make do as best they can. You are the one who is attempting to impose your frankly bizaar concept of 'normality' and value judgements of 'good' and 'bad' upon the situation.
That seems to indicate that you don't hold the position of father in high regard
I have a great deal of respect and love for my father, I merely accept that we have differing views on a number of subjects including how my life is lived
I see this as a big indicator of the decline in our culture
wow, big one.... Define 'your' culture? why is it 'better' or 'worse' then any other form, version or type of culture? why are the changes in 'your' culture necassarilly 'bad' isn't life all about change? how can you say that any change is bad, or for that matter good? finally, why is it 'your' culture, why is it not also 'his' culture and 'my' culture, and why if that is the case, do we not have a say in 'your' version of it?

hope this has answered some of your points and raised some areas of thought for you.

Well done!! So True!!

Drunk commies reborn, you are scum if you truly believe what you wrote - I have another point to add to that...if 'normal men' are so great at teaching their sons/daughters how to be good men/women, then does that mean it is right to beat children/wives/other people? Because a large and growing number of men beat their families.

[QUOTE=Of the underpants]Exactly, and this is a kid that has had 22 years experience of being a kid.

Just because he has the mental age of 7 doesn't actually mean that he acts like a seven year old. It more so refers to his ability to learn and understand, but 22 years will bring some knowledge of how the world works, regardless of your mental age. This guy will know what's happening, and will not like it.

[QUOTE=Of the underpants]Exactly, and this is a kid that has had 22 years experience of being a kid.

Just because he has the mental age of 7 doesn't actually mean that he acts like a seven year old. It more so refers to his ability to learn and understand, but 22 years will bring some knowledge of how the world works, regardless of your mental age. This guy will know what's happening, and will not like it.
Which is basically what i said.

[QUOTE=Krakozha]
Which is basically what i said.

Not quite, you say he's like a seven year old, I say he's like a 22 year old with a 7 year old's ability to learn

Ok, say....I have a son, he is seven. I'm worried that the gene that makes him fat/big-eared/mentally handicapped/asthmatic will pass on to his child when he's old enough - do I then have the right to steralise him temporarily or not?
Your hypothetical son won't remain mentally at that age for the rest of his life.

Frankly, an child living in an adult's body, involved in a sexual relationship, is basically being sexually abused. A seven year old is not physically capable of fathering a child. This man is, but that doesn't mean he is emotionally or intellectually capable of dealing with the consequences.

That being said, I don't support sterilization.

This could possibly set up a very dangerous precedence couldn't it? Your intellegence deciding weather or not a grown adult..... a grown legal adult is able to bear children. I guess where does one set the bar? Is the first hypothetical question I would ask? If you don't have the IQ of a typical 18 yr old your not allowed to become a parent? Is this where were going? Wow! You know I've seen people who are dumb as rocks but have been great parents where I've seen smart people who couldn't parent to save their soles because they have no idea how to love their children.
Second, what if the boy became catholic or any other religion that does not condone birth control. Does society have the right to infringe on his freedom of religion? A dangerous precedence indeed.

[QUOTE=Of the underpants]

Not quite, you say he's like a seven year old, I say he's like a 22 year old with a 7 year old's ability to learn

Ok, but that's what i meant. just didn't say it quite like that.

That being said, I don't support sterilization.
In general, or in this case only?

In general, or in this case only?
In ALL cases. Unless the person is capable of deciding to do it.

ok, I'm going to spell this out for you really lengthilly and slowly, every single issue I have with your post.

1.Male children need a strong and decent male rolemodel from day 1
need? prove it.
strong? so muscles are important in child rearing?
decent? define decency? is that just your inturpretation? is this accepted by all people everywhere?
male rolemodels - ummmm yeah right. lets stop attempted to engineer a homogeneic version of masculinity its damaging both to children and the society that they become appart of.
They need to be taught what being a man is about
and that is? let me guess, football, 'working hard and playing hard', beer, 'strong' silent types, not expressing emotion... that kind of stuff? b*llocks to the lot of it
Women can and do raise kids alone
well done... so can men, its called 'single parenting'
It's not the optimal situation
well maybe not, but people manage, its called LIFE.
Boys raised by single mothers have a much higher rate of criminal behavior
might this have more to do with their socio-economic status then by their familly life? correllation does not mean causation, you are looking at one variable and attempting to declare the cause of a behaviour from that one variable ignoring everything else
They're trying on the roles that society shows them in movies and magazines (often the role of a ganster) because they don't have a real father to show them that being a man isn't about taking what you want at the expense of others, but rather taking responsibility as a provider, protector, and leader
and being a 'woman' is all about staying home and cooking... OH wait... ITS NOT, men are quite capable of raising children, they are also quite capable of going to work, so are women, guess what kiddo, you are manufacturing and further encouraging gender stereotypes and other such lunacy.

2.It's not my place to tell people how to raise their kids
thats very true, neither is it mine.
If it were this world would be a much better place
thats a hypothesis that I am very glad I will not have the chance to disprove, let me just say that I remain skeptical
Just because you can do it (raise a child in a single parent home) doesn't mean it's the best thing to do
and the other options are?

3.What do you have against fathers?
nothing... at what point did you gain the inferance that I might have some strange father hating syndrome?
You think a retarded guy is just as good in the role as a person of average intelligence or better
I think that he has the right, same as every other human being to live his life how he wants to with minimal interferance, granted he needs additional help, but if he finds a woman who loves him then I see no reason why he should not be allowed to have a child with her, I'm making no claims as to how 'good' or 'bad' such a situation maybe, I am merely stating that many other families are in similarly less then ideal situations and they make do as best they can. You are the one who is attempting to impose your frankly bizaar concept of 'normality' and value judgements of 'good' and 'bad' upon the situation.
That seems to indicate that you don't hold the position of father in high regard
I have a great deal of respect and love for my father, I merely accept that we have differing views on a number of subjects including how my life is lived
I see this as a big indicator of the decline in our culture
wow, big one.... Define 'your' culture? why is it 'better' or 'worse' then any other form, version or type of culture? why are the changes in 'your' culture necassarilly 'bad' isn't life all about change? how can you say that any change is bad, or for that matter good? finally, why is it 'your' culture, why is it not also 'his' culture and 'my' culture, and why if that is the case, do we not have a say in 'your' version of it?

hope this has answered some of your points and raised some areas of thought for you.Children, males especially, raised in single parent homes have a statistically higher chance of using drugs, having children prior to marriage, and being locked up.

Strong in my post doesn't refer to physical strenght. I had hoped you would understand that. Strong refers to having a strong character. Being honest, standing up for what he beleives in, and instilling these values into his children.

I never said women need to stay home and cook. Strong female role models are important too. I don't minimize the contribution of either parent.

There are differences, psychological and physical, between men and women. Because of that there are things the average man is good at that the average woman isn't and vice versa. Because of this a child should optimally have both a male and female parent.

If a woman is pregnant and can't or won't marry the father but chooses to have the baby anyway I wouldn't want to force her to have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption, but it's not the best situation, and it should be discouraged PRIOR to pregnancy.

A vasectomy for the 7 year old in a man's body would be a step towards reducing the number of children born into less than optimal family situations. Since the person in question is mentally 7 years old, he's under the authority of his parents. Since they beleive vasectomy is in his best interests we shouldn't interfere.

This could possibly set up a very dangerous precedence couldn't it? Your intellegence deciding weather or not a grown adult..... a grown legal adult is able to bear children. I guess where does one set the bar? Is the first hypothetical question I would ask? If you don't have the IQ of a typical 18 yr old your not allowed to become a parent? Is this where were going? Wow! You know I've seen people who are dumb as rocks but have been great parents where I've seen smart people who couldn't parent to save their soles because they have no idea how to love their children.
Second, what if the boy became catholic or any other religion that does not condone birth control. Does society have the right to infringe on his freedom of religion? A dangerous precedence indeed.
DING DING DING!! This is the best point so far!

Well done!! So True!!

Drunk commies reborn, you are scum if you truly believe what you wrote - I have another point to add to that...if 'normal men' are so great at teaching their sons/daughters how to be good men/women, then does that mean it is right to beat children/wives/other people? Because a large and growing number of men beat their families.
Nice ad hominem attack. I said nothing to condemn or degrade anyone yet you feel the need to call me scum. I think that shows your level of intellect and maturity.

Normal men don't beat their children or wives. Those that do are exceptions to the rule, and aren't real men. The number of men who abuse their wives and children isn't growing. I challenge you to show some statistics that support your statement.

You seem to think that man=wife beater. That shows what a bigot you are. Until you can support your absurd statement I'm done with you.

Children, males especially, raised in single parent homes have a statistically higher chance of using drugs, having children prior to marriage, and being locked up.

Strong in my post doesn't refer to physical strenght. I had hoped you would understand that. Strong refers to having a strong character. Being honest, standing up for what he beleives in, and instilling these values into his children.

I never said women need to stay home and cook. Strong female role models are important too. I don't minimize the contribution of either parent.

There are differences, psychological and physical, between men and women. Because of that there are things the average man is good at that the average woman isn't and vice versa. Because of this a child should optimally have both a male and female parent.

If a woman is pregnant and can't or won't marry the father but chooses to have the baby anyway I wouldn't want to force her to have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption, but it's not the best situation, and it should be discouraged PRIOR to pregnancy.

A vasectomy for the 7 year old in a man's body would be a step towards reducing the number of children born into less than optimal family situations. Since the person in question is mentally 7 years old, he's under the authority of his parents. Since they beleive vasectomy is in his best interests we shouldn't interfere.

What if I truly believed killing my (hypothetical again) son was in his best interests - is that up to me? Didn't you read the earlier post, it's not a seven year old with an adults body, it's a twenty two year old with a seven year old learning rate and ability.

DING DING DING!! This is the best point so far!

agreed


Drunk commies - much as I would love to attempt a discussion with you we are a) distracting from the main thread, although it is a relevant discussion it is slightly diverging and b) it would take far far to long for me too clearly set out everything I have issues with in you arguement as you are inferring far far too many things beyond the simple arguement of why he shouldn't be allowed children. for example you've just made an arguement against same-sex parenting the very idea that you could do something like that is making me ill. oh and
c) I have a psychology final tommorrow morning

To clarify on the voting thing, in the United Kingdom, if you are classified in any area of mental deficiency which could impact your decision on the vote, then the right to vote is withheld from you. This also applies to people suffering from psychological disorders such as schizophrenia, alongside those with the more obvious deficiencies such as this case.

Regarding sterilisation... it's a bad precedent. The path of "selective breeding" is slippery at best, and it's not easy to climb back up the slope. I say it shouldn't be done.

To clarify on the voting thing, in the United Kingdom, if you are classified in any area of mental deficiency which could impact your decision on the vote, then the right to vote is withheld from you. This also applies to people suffering from psychological disorders such as schizophrenia, alongside those with the more obvious deficiencies such as this case.

Regarding sterilisation... it's a bad precedent. The path of "selective breeding" is slippery at best, and it's not easy to climb back up the slope. I say it shouldn't be done.
It may appear that way but clearly defining it does not make the slippery slope argument any less of a logical fallacy

To clarify on the voting thing, in the United Kingdom, if you are classified in any area of mental deficiency which could impact your decision on the vote, then the right to vote is withheld from you. This also applies to people suffering from psychological disorders such as schizophrenia, alongside those with the more obvious deficiencies such as this case.

Regarding sterilisation... it's a bad precedent. The path of "selective breeding" is slippery at best, and it's not easy to climb back up the slope. I say it shouldn't be done.

Then why did my brother (mental age of 4 as i keep reminding you) recieve the invitation for a postal vote?

It may appear that way but clearly defining it does not make the slippery slope argument any less of a logical fallacy
It is NOT a logical argument at all, that we should weedle out the 'weaknesses' and don't you dare pretend otherwise!!

And Drunk Commies..... http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/11/4618

Children, males especially, raised in single parent homes have a statistically higher chance of using drugs, having children prior to marriage, and being locked up.

My husband grew up in a single parent home, he's a doctor now.



I never said women need to stay home and cook. Strong female role models are important too. I don't minimize the contribution of either parent.

There are differences, psychological and physical, between men and women. Because of that there are things the average man is good at that the average woman isn't and vice versa. Because of this a child should optimally have both a male and female parent.

If a woman is pregnant and can't or won't marry the father but chooses to have the baby anyway I wouldn't want to force her to have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption, but it's not the best situation, and it should be discouraged PRIOR to pregnancy.



This I do agree with, children need both parents for a balanced view of the adult world, but it's not a requirement, plenty of people grow up in single parent homes to become healthy, happy, balanced adults, and plenty grow up in two parent families to be totally screwed up. It depends on the parents ability to parent.



A vasectomy for the 7 year old in a man's body would be a step towards reducing the number of children born into less than optimal family situations. Since the person in question is mentally 7 years old, he's under the authority of his parents. Since they beleive vasectomy is in his best interests we shouldn't interfere.



This I think is wrong. He's not going to have a relationship with someone with normal IQ, only with someone with a similar IQ to himself. So you could argue that every girl born with a mental disability should be sterilised because she could get pregnant, well, the guy has a choice whether or not to stick around, but the girl is stuck with the kid regardless. Besides, sterilising a girl means that there'll be no need to explain mensturation to her, makes life much easier!.
This is an unnecessary procedure, singling out one individual, if it goes ahead, where will it stop? Will we sterilise our kids in later years because they have a genetic predisposition to developing cancer, or giving birth to children with other disabilities? Will we sterilise every woman over 35 in case they give birth to a Downs Syndrome child?

It is NOT a logical argument at all, that we should weedle out the 'weaknesses' and don't you dare pretend otherwise!!

And Drunk Commies..... http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/11/4618
Even in emotional topics logical fallacies are still fallacies

It is NOT a logical argument at all, that we should weedle out the 'weaknesses' and don't you dare pretend otherwise!!

And Drunk Commies..... http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/11/4618
A 0.3% increase in reporting between the years of 2001 and 2002? That's your big evidence?

A study done over such a short time and showing such a small change is subject to numerous statistical problems.

Here's another link. It shows domestic abuse trending down over a period of five years. Still not perfect evidence, but it contains a decent sample size and it's over 5 years, not just one like yours. www.willamette.edu/publicpolicy/chip/docs_domestic/domestic.htm

This is a case of someone being obviously harmful to the gene pool in general. If he can't make the decision himself, then his guardians must.

Then why did my brother (mental age of 4 as i keep reminding you) recieve the invitation for a postal vote?

I was just going by information on my polling card - which stated that clearly. Could just be a local rule.


It may appear that way but clearly defining it does not make the slippery slope argument any less of a logical fallacy

Once you have set a precedent, where do you stop? If a line is drawn here, it means it can, and almost certainly will, be reborn later down the line, and eventually it will move towards a point at which anyone with the possibility of a hereditary defect - if there is even one reasonably close relative with one - will not be permitted to have children.

Then it moves further on. We will start selecting for intelligence, for physical abilities, for looks. For anything which could be deemed negative to humanity.

I'm less worried about this particular case than about the precedent which it sets. Do you really want to live in a world where your genes may be deliberately edited out of the human race?

I say sterilize. After all, I can foresee no circumstances under which he should be allowed to procreate anyway - it's not like he is an independent functioning adult - and this obviously is the best and most convenient way to make sure he doesn't.

What is wrong with people?

"the whole problem with the world today is that fools and fanatics are so sure of themselves, and wise men so full of doubt"

- Bertrand Russel (i think, correct me if i'm wrong please)

I was just going by information on my polling card - which stated that clearly. Could just be a local rule.




Once you have set a precedent, where do you stop? If a line is drawn here, it means it can, and almost certainly will, be reborn later down the line, and eventually it will move towards a point at which anyone with the possibility of a hereditary defect - if there is even one reasonably close relative with one - will not be permitted to have children.

Then it moves further on. We will start selecting for intelligence, for physical abilities, for looks. For anything which could be deemed negative to humanity.

I'm less worried about this particular case than about the precedent which it sets. Do you really want to live in a world where your genes may be deliberately edited out of the human race?

Again logical fallacy …
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

Allowing legal guardians of one person that will never be in a position to legally make the decision himself in no ways proves that selective breeding for looks is going to happen.
(you may want to read up why it is a logical fallacy … there is a reason it is classified as such)

Hmm. It seems like a lot of people here don't really understand his medical condition or have a realistic idea of who he'd be likely to get pregnant. I think Googling holoprosencephaly is worth a look-see: he appears to have a relatively mild case, but the disease can be extremely devastasting and disfiguring.

The article said he has the mental capacity of a six year old, which means he requires constant supervision and care. If his parents can't give him that fulltime, they've likely delegated some of his care to a group home, where other people with disabilities live. If he has "relations" with any young person, they're also likely to be mentally retarded.

I'm not saying that mentally retarded people shouldn't ever be allowed to have sex, though I'm concerned about the issue of consent. (Especially if they were having sex with someone who is not mentally retarded, because I'd be concerned they were being exploited.) I am saying that I think people with the mental capacity of six year olds can't properly understand or deal with the consequences of engaging in sexual actions. If Gavin gets someone who is also mentally retarded pregnant, who is going to care for their child?

And, legally, that's something likely to fall on the parents. If Gavin's parents don't want to raise another child (who has a high likelihood of also being mentally retarded and therefore requiring time consuming and expensive care), I do think they have the right to have a minimally invasive day surgery performed on their son.

Vasectomy is a very simple medical procedure with very few risks. It's not going to alter his hormones or put him at increased risk for health problems down the road. However, it's still not going to protect him from STDs, so if he is having sex, there still remain many issues for his parents to be concerned about. How many 6 year olds know enough to tell their partners they have herpes or hepatitis or AIDS? His parents are in a rough spot, and it does seem like they've got their son's best interests at heart.

Again where does this end. Do you give society the right to steralise anyone under a certain IQ. What is that level? Is intellegence the only criteria used. Do you start going after people who have high risks of cancer or MS of Muscular Distrophy & start taking away their rights too. Its the same step that the Nazi party statred down.

Plus no one ever commented about the violation of religous freedom. Does a low IQ take away that too? Thats exactly what you are doing.

A seven yr old certainly has the capability to decide weather or not they believe in a higher power & what that higher power is.

I say sterilize. After all, I can foresee no circumstances under which he should be allowed to procreate anyway - it's not like he is an independent functioning adult - and this obviously is the best and most convenient way to make sure he doesn't.

What is wrong with people?


In that case, why carry out this unnecessary procedure? If he's under constant care, then how will he ever get the opportunity to procreate?

Again where does this end. Do you give society the right to steralise anyone under a certain IQ. What is that level? Is intellegence the only criteria used. Do you start gooing after peoplke who have high risks of cancer or MS of Muscular Distrophy & start taking away their rights too. Its the same step that the Nazi party statred down.

Plus no one ever commented about the violation of religous freedom. Does a low IQ take away that too? Thats exactly what you are doing.

A seven yr old certainly has the capability to decide weather or not they believe in a higher power & what that higher power is.
Wow today must be logical fallacy day

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

In that case, why carry out this unnecessary procedure? If he's under constant care, then how will he ever get the opportunity to procreate?
Legally he shouldn’t … any sex he has will be considered rape under the vulnerable adults act

Plus no one ever commented about the violation of religous freedom. Does a low IQ take away that too? Thats exactly what you are doing.


Oh come on, does the average six year old have religious freedom? Absolutely not.

Clearly, this individual will never be able to make competent decisions for himself, and that includes the decision to procreate.

Or are people actually suggesting that he should be encouraged to father children.

In that case, why carry out this unnecessary procedure? If he's under constant care, then how will he ever get the opportunity to procreate?

Don't be obtuse. If he is an group home situation, or spends time with others in a similar condition in a community care situation, the will be potential for him to have sex.

Wow today must be logical fallacy day

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm
History has gone down that path before & probably will again. So don't give me that bogus little textbook theroy.

Government itself is a logical fallacy an attempt to put order into chaos & your idea of order should scare people.

Legally he shouldn’t … any sex he has will be considered rape under the vulnerable adults act

What if it's consenting sex with another mentally disabled person?

History has gone down that path before & probably will again. So don't give me that bogus little textbook theroy.

Government itself is a logical fallacy an attempt to put order into chaos & your idea of order should scare people.
Nice turning it emotional … does not make it any less of a logical fallacy though there is a reason it is classified as such because the premises do not prove the conclusion
And its not bogus it is perfectly legit … unless you can prove that it is not a fallicy.

What if it's consenting sex with another mentally disabled person?
He is in no position to legally consent so it cant be consensual.
It is a similar situation with two minors where the punishment varies state to state, in Minnesota till recently the male was ALWAYS considered the aggressor so even if they were both underage the male was charged with statutory rape
But that has changed (thank god) recently

Cat Tribes is the one more familiarly with the law I usually only deal with it in the other end of the spectrum (elderly)

Don't be obtuse. If he is an group home situation, or spends time with others in a similar condition in a community care situation, the will be potential for him to have sex.

Presuming that how things are run in England is similar to how things are run in Ireland, group homes are only mixed during work hours, homes are male only and female only. Those living in the community in special care homes, there are 3-4 people living in the house with full time carers working shifts, who clean the house, prepare meals, get them up on time for work, and report any medical or dental requirements to the society they're registered with. If at home, they are usually never out of their parents sight. Community homes allow less opportunity to procreate than home care, they'd get sued a lot if they didn't

Presuming that how things are run in England is similar to how things are run in Ireland, group homes are only mixed during work hours, homes are male only and female only. Those living in the community in special care homes, there are 3-4 people living in the house with full time carers working shifts, who clean the house, prepare meals, get them up on time for work, and report any medical or dental requirements to the society they're registered with. If at home, they are usually never out of their parents sight. Community homes allow less opportunity to procreate than home care, they'd get sued a lot if they didn't

But apparently, it can, and does happen, hence the semi-periodic bruhaha about this kind of thing.

What is the big deal. This is just ensuring that he won't do something that he shouldn't do anyway. (Procreate). It's simply a sensible precaution, that won't effect his quality of life whatsoever. The only way anyone could really oppose this is if they actually thought he should, at some point, have children.

He is in no position to legally consent so it cant be consensual.
It is a similar situation with two minors where the punishment varies state to state, in Minnesota till recently the male was ALWAYS considered the aggressor so even if they were both underage the male was charged with statutory rape
But that has changed (thank god) recently

Cat Tribes is the one more familiarly with the law I usually only deal with it in the other end of the spectrum (elderly)


OK, but is the law the same in England/Europe. I'm not sure about Ireland, so I can't say for sure aout the UK. I know that someone wanted to introduce basically prostitutes - people paid to have sex with mentally disabled people, because, they claimed, that mentally disabled people have the same sexual urges as other people but generally can't do anything about it. Needless to say, there was uproar about it. This was a few years back, so I can't remember where I heard it, etc, etc, etc

But apparently, it can, and does happen, hence the semi-periodic bruhaha about this kind of thing.

What is the big deal. This is just ensuring that he won't do something that he shouldn't do anyway. (Procreate). It's simply a sensible precaution, that won't effect his quality of life whatsoever. The only way anyone could really oppose this is if they actually thought he should, at some point, have children.
Which legally cant happen as the woman most likely would be guilty of rape (depending on location and situation of the woman)

OK, but is the law the same in England/Europe. I'm not sure about Ireland, so I can't say for sure aout the UK. I know that someone wanted to introduce basically prostitutes - people paid to have sex with mentally disabled people, because, they claimed, that mentally disabled people have the same sexual urges as other people but generally can't do anything about it. Needless to say, there was uproar about it. This was a few years back, so I can't remember where I heard it, etc, etc, etc
Not sure about European laws (would be interested to find out)

Nice turning it emotional … does not make it any less of a logical fallacy though there is a reason it is classified as such because the premises do not prove the conclusion
And its not bogus it is perfectly legit … unless you can prove that it is not a fallicy.
Excuse Me?
I say this needs to be an emotional issue.

I have every right to say your theroy is bogus.

On many occasions humans have decided to steralise people for what they saw & mental & genetic inferiority.

Lets start with the Nazi's with the Jews & anyone not WASP & they had statistic to back their claims up. Biased statistics like IQ test but statistics none the less.

Stalin & his bunch of Yahoos did the same thing.

How about the Slave trade. Many of them were castrated` calling them mentally inferior.

If the path has been taken many times before it is not logical falliacy that we have not learned from our mistakes & will travel the same road again.

Not sure about European laws (would be interested to find out)

Yeah, must read up, but not now...too lazy today...

But apparently, it can, and does happen, hence the semi-periodic bruhaha about this kind of thing.

What is the big deal. This is just ensuring that he won't do something that he shouldn't do anyway. (Procreate). It's simply a sensible precaution, that won't effect his quality of life whatsoever. The only way anyone could really oppose this is if they actually thought he should, at some point, have children.
Why should he not procreate?? Who the hell are you to say that he isn't allowed to procreate? Who made you god? If you are religious in any way, then you will believe that god gave him the ability to procreate for a reason. Are you saying my Brother's friends, that have Downs, shouldn't have had their (now 5 year old) baby girl? They are very much in Love and they supposedly have the mental age of a 5 year old each. Who are you to say that Gavin cannot have children?

Which legally cant happen as the woman most likely would be guilty of rape (depending on location and situation of the woman)

So your saying if it does the woman should undergo a forced abortion since it was the product of rape?

Nice turning it emotional … does not make it any less of a logical fallacy though there is a reason it is classified as such because the premises do not prove the conclusion
And its not bogus it is perfectly legit … unless you can prove that it is not a fallicy.
Also you were the one who turned this emotional by throwing a comment that was obviously meant to insult & belittle.

Why should he not procreate?? Who the hell are you to say that he isn't allowed to procreate? Who made you god? If you are religious in any way, then you will believe that god gave him the ability to procreate for a reason. Are you saying my Brother's friends, that have Downs, shouldn't have had their (now 5 year old) baby girl? They are very much in Love and they supposedly have the mental age of a 5 year old each. Who are you to say that Gavin cannot have children?

He shouldn't procreate because he is not a competent adult. There are a whole host of things that adults are allowed to do that children and incompetents are not. Love has nothing to do with it.

A couple who were both born with dwarfism wanted to have a child, even though they knew that their child will also have dwarfism. People thought that that was immoral, but their family is very happy. If they had given into peer ressure, they would have regretted it for the rest of their lives...

He shouldn't procreate because he is not a competent adult. There are a whole host of things that adults are allowed to do that children and incompetents are not. Love has nothing to do with it.

THEY can look after their baby perfectly. They feed, change, take her to the beach - she's starting school soon. There are people I know that have the ability to kick a ball around a field, but when it comes to looking after THEIR kids, they're crap, treat them like sh*t, worse than sh*t, and they grow up to do the same. These friends of my brother, friends of mine, are perfect parents, better parents than any other, because they know how to deal with people, they can teach their daughter how to deal with people, and they have been able to deal with life through all adversity, and most of all, they love each other - love has a great deal to do with parenting, in fact that is one of the definitions of being a parent, providing a loving and caring atmosphere for your child.

Besides, if you really believe that, perhaps we should lock everyone with a mental disability up and not bother to teach them? Is this what you're saying? Because it seems to me, that if they're not allowed the greatest freedom of all (to have a child of their own) then why bother with them? Why not lock them up and throw away the key? Perhaps this should also apply to someone with dislexia too? And what about Homosexuals? Because that is the logical conclusion to your argument.

THEY can look after their baby perfectly. They feed, change, take her to the beach - she's starting school soon. There are people I know that have the ability to kick a ball around a field, but when it comes to looking after THEIR kids, they're crap, treat them like sh*t, worse than sh*t, and they grow up to do the same. These friends of my brother, friends of mine, are perfect parents, better parents than any other, because they know how to deal with people, they can teach their daughter how to deal with people, and they have been able to deal with life through all adversity, and most of all, they love each other - love has a great deal to do with parenting, in fact that is one of the definitions of being a parent, providing a loving and caring atmosphere for your child.


I think that that's wonderful! But does their kid have Down's Syndrome too?

THEY can look after their baby perfectly. They feed, change, take her to the beach - she's starting school soon. There are people I know that have the ability to kick a ball around a field, but when it comes to looking after THEIR kids, they're crap, treat them like sh*t, worse than sh*t, and they grow up to do the same. These friends of my brother, friends of mine, are perfect parents, better parents than any other, because they know how to deal with people, they can teach their daughter how to deal with people, and they have been able to deal with life through all adversity, and most of all, they love each other - love has a great deal to do with parenting, in fact that is one of the definitions of being a parent, providing a loving and caring atmosphere for your child.

They have jobs then?

I think that that's wonderful! But does their kid have Down's Syndrome too?

No, she is a perfectly 'ordinary' child. Apart from asthma and an allergy to dogs she is perfect.

They have jobs then?

Yes, He is a cleaner in Waitrose, and She is a cashier also in Waitrose. Want their phone numbers too??

No, she is a perfectly 'ordinary' child. Apart from asthma and an allergy to dogs she is perfect.


So your friends are living proof that mentally disabled people can be capable parents then.

I hope your friends kids settles well in school. It's going to be tough for her in the future, when kids realise that her parents are different, kids are so cruel and unthinking sometimes. My baby sister is physically disabled due to a spinal defect. She can't play on the street any more, there's too much verbal abuse, and a fall due to physical abuse could mean another operation, thankfully, the kids she goes to school with grew up with her around, and understand how and why she's different, they're a great bunch and make her feel normal. Hopefully your friends will have a class full of kids just like them

Excuse Me?
I say this needs to be an emotional issue.

I have every right to say your theroy is bogus.

On many occasions humans have decided to steralise people for what they saw & mental & genetic inferiority.

Lets start with the Nazi's with the Jews & anyone not WASP & they had statistic to back their claims up. Biased statistics like IQ test but statistics none the less.

Stalin & his bunch of Yahoos did the same thing.

How about the Slave trade. Many of them were castrated` calling them mentally inferior.

If the path has been taken many times before it is not logical falliacy that we have not learned from our mistakes & will travel the same road again.

It is an emotional issue still does not negate the logical fallacy
Just because “C” has happen does not mean that “C” will happen now nor have you proved that A will lead to C nor that A will Lead to B which will lead to C


Just because genocide has happened in the past does NOT mean that one persons legal guardian making a decision for him that he will NEVER be qualified to make himself does NOT mean that selective breading will happen nor genocide
THAT is why it is a logical fallacy it takes a false step in there in which the proof does not extend

This is NOT a path that has been taken before and you have not proved that if A happens C will
Hence the bad logic which leads to a bad argument emotional or otherwise

Also you were the one who turned this emotional by throwing a comment that was obviously meant to insult & belittle.
Nope it was meant to point out the plethora of people that are making the same mistake in their arguments

Yes, He is a cleaner in Waitrose, and She is a cashier also in Waitrose. Want their phone numbers too??

Well then - and I assume that they also have their own place, deal with their own bills &c. - they are fully competent independent adults. So there really isn't anyway to stop them from having kids. Also this would make their mental ages significantly higher than six.

That's a very different situation what the OP was talking about.

So your saying if it does the woman should undergo a forced abortion since it was the product of rape?
No I did not say that though I think that her legal guardians should be able to make the decision because she is not and will never be in a position to make the decision unlike a minor who will grow up nor will she be in a position to care for the Childs needs when it is born
I think because she is not able to (The same thing is done by families deciding medical care for incapacitated people) make the decision herself it is up to her family to help her do so

So your friends are living proof that mentally disabled people can be capable parents then.

I hope your friends kids settles well in school. It's going to be tough for her in the future, when kids realise that her parents are different, kids are so cruel and unthinking sometimes. My baby sister is physically disabled due to a spinal defect. She can't play on the street any more, there's too much verbal abuse, and a fall due to physical abuse could mean another operation, thankfully, the kids she goes to school with grew up with her around, and understand how and why she's different, they're a great bunch and make her feel normal. Hopefully your friends will have a class full of kids just like them

I like to think of it like this She IS normal, it's the rest of us that're different, those of us that think that to look/act differently is to BE weird, or different, ARE different. I'm sure she will though, she lives in a nice area, nice kids, nice people in general. Plus, her parents get paid quite well ;)

Well then - and I assume that they also have their own place, deal with their own bills &c. - they are fully competent independent adults. So there really isn't anyway to stop them from having kids. Also this would make their mental ages significantly higher than six.

That's a very different situation what the OP was talking about.

Do you not understand?? Having a mental age of six doesn't mean that you are as intelligent as a six year old, it means that you have the learning capacity of a six year old!

Well then - and I assume that they also have their own place, deal with their own bills &c. - they are fully competent independent adults. So there really isn't anyway to stop them from having kids. Also this would make their mental ages significantly higher than six.

That's a very different situation what the OP was talking about.


Actually, a lot of Down's Syndrome people cope quite well with the big bad world, a lot of them hold down jobs, live independantly, usually with a lot of contact with helpers but not necessarily in a home, they're usually happy, more intelligent than people with mental disabilities stemming from other problems, friendly and more mature in their dealings. They do not have a huge capacity for learning, but they have a mental age closer to their chonological age.

I worked with people from all backgrounds with moderate/severe learning disabilities as a volunteer, the Down's Syndrome people were then ones who ran the kitchen, helped the other's out with their tasks, one took it on himself to be my personal guard on part of my walk home, while the other's stayed behind, sometimes acted hostile, sometimes avoiding interactions. Down's Syndrome people are very different in their attitudes and ways

It is an emotional issue still does not negate the logical fallacy
Just because “C” has happen does not mean that “C” will happen now nor have you proved that A will lead to C nor that A will Lead to B which will lead to C


Just because genocide has happened in the past does NOT mean that one persons legal guardian making a decision for him that he will NEVER be qualified to make himself does NOT mean that selective breading will happen nor genocide
THAT is why it is a logical fallacy it takes a false step in there in which the proof does not extend

This is NOT a path that has been taken before and you have not proved that if A happens C will
Hence the bad logic which leads to a bad argument emotional or otherwise
Yes You are correct. I don't have a magic eight ball to see into the future to see what is certain & what is not. So I look back on the past actions of man to draw some of my conclusions about the future.
This theroy is no less legitamate then any other & I have historical proof.

Plus you still have not answered the basic question of where is the line drawn?

13 yr old IQ 18 yr old IQ? Where? USA today is written for a 2nd grade reading level because americans on average "read at that level".
So I ask again where do you draw the line when you use IQ as the only basis.

Do you not understand?? Having a mental age of six doesn't mean that you are as intelligent as a six year old, it means that you have the learning capacity of a six year old!
Depending on how you define intelligence they DO have the intelligence (by your explanation of their learning ability)


in•tel•li•gence P Pronunciation Key ( n-t l -j ns)
n.
1.
a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
b. The faculty of thought and reason.
c. Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at min


A is the learning and application of knowledge

No, she is a perfectly 'ordinary' child. Apart from asthma and an allergy to dogs she is perfect.



Just to point out:

She carries the Down Syndrome gene is recessive. She is a carrier, and has the gene. She can still pass it.

Just pointing this out. Not trying to prove a point.

Depending on how you define intelligence they DO have the intelligence (by your explanation of their learning ability)
in•tel•li•gence P Pronunciation Key ( n-t l -j ns)
n.
1.
a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
b. The faculty of thought and reason.
c. Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at min

Well, you HAVE actually just proved that a seven year old is able to look after a child anyway!

Point of fact 1. Seven Year olds have the capacity to aquire and apply knowledge
Point of fact 2. They have the faculty of thought and reason
Point of fact 3. Many adults that are supposedly able to have kids do not DO NOT have superior powers of mind, look at David Beckham.

Just to point out:

She carries the Down Syndrome gene is recessive. She is a carrier, and has the gene. She can still pass it.

Just pointing this out. Not trying to prove a point.

Have i not proved that Downs Syndrome doesn't mean incapable?

Yes You are correct. I don't have a magic eight ball to see into the future to see what is certain & what is not. So I look back on the past actions of man to draw some of my conclusions about the future.
This theroy is no less legitamate then any other & I have historical proof.

Plus you still have not answered the basic question of where is the line drawn?

13 yr old IQ 18 yr old IQ? Where? USA today is written for a 2nd grade reading level because americans on average "read at that level".
So I ask again where do you draw the line when you use IQ as the only basis.
You have proof that letting the family make a decision for their mentally handicapped child leads to selective breading and or genocide?

I draw the line at letting their family decide at the same level decided if they are legally competent as an adult

I am not advocating governmental control
I am advocating the family making a medical decision on a procedure for their mentally handicapped individual

If you think the logical fallacy of slippery slope is valid then let me use one of my own

[flawed argument]
Your banning them allowing this procedure will lead to a fascist state where in capacitated people like people in coma are denied medical treatment because no human can make a decision for another human even if that human in question is not capable of making the decision for themselves
Thousands will die because of this … maybe millions
[/flawed argument]

Just to point out:

She carries the Down Syndrome gene is recessive. She is a carrier, and has the gene. She can still pass it.

Just pointing this out. Not trying to prove a point.


Actually, Down's Syndrome is caused when two chromosomes which normally split stick together.
Half the chromosomes in your cells are from you father, half from your mother. If the abnormal chromosome from each parent is discarded in conception, then the child is born normal and healthy, if not, then he/she is born with Down's too. If it's not inherited, it's not carried as a dormant gene. Unless a chomosmal disorder is within the chromosome itself, it's not carried. Yes Down's Syndrome people have a higher chance of passing on a defective chromosome configuation, but the actual chromosomes are normal, just genetic information gets confused by the presence of extra genetic material

Well, you HAVE actually just proved that a seven year old is able to look after a child anyway!

Point of fact 1. Seven Year olds have the capacity to aquire and apply knowledge
Point of fact 2. They have the faculty of thought and reason
Point of fact 3. Many adults that are supposedly able to have kids do not DO NOT have superior powers of mind, look at David Beckham.
The dictionary definition of the word intelligent proved the ability of a minor to have kids?

Wow here I thought it just defined possible meanings of the word intelligent …
Point 1) 2 year olds have the ability to reason to an extent as well … hell my cat has the ability to learn and apply knowledge does that make them qualified to raise my child?

Point 2) young kids do as well … there has to be an ability to make a thoroughly informed decision for them to be legally in charge of their destiny

Point 3) while it sucks at least they can make an informed decision not something that a minor or someone declared mentally handicapped has the ability to do

Do you not understand?? Having a mental age of six doesn't mean that you are as intelligent as a six year old, it means that you have the learning capacity of a six year old!

Actually, I don't think that the term "mental age" is very useful at all. But everyone seems to be using it. The difference is clearly whether or not one is able to fully function as a competent adult. In other words, is capable of functioning independantly and making these types of decisions. Apparently the subject of the OP is not. Hence, sterilization makes sense.

I fail to see why anyone has a problem with that. After all, people who are not allowed to sign contracts for credit cards, most certainly shouldn't be allowed to bring kids into the world as it is all part and parcel of the same thing.

Actually, Down's Syndrome is caused when two chromosomes which normally split stick together.
Half the chromosomes in your cells are from you father, half from your mother. If the abnormal chromosome from each parent is discarded in conception, then the child is born normal and healthy, if not, then he/she is born with Down's too. If it's not inherited, it's not carried as a dormant gene. Unless a chomosmal disorder is within the chromosome itself, it's not carried. Yes Down's Syndrome people have a higher chance of passing on a defective chromosome configuation, but the actual chromosomes are normal, just genetic information gets confused by the presence of extra genetic material
.
Ah. My bad. I must have been thinking of a different disorder. So many disorders these days.

The dictionary definition of the word intelligent proved the ability of a minor to have kids?

Wow here I thought it just defined possible meanings of the word intelligent …
Point 1) 2 year olds have the ability to reason to an extent as well … hell my cat has the ability to learn and apply knowledge does that make them qualified to raise my child?

Point 2) young kids do as well … there has to be an ability to make a thoroughly informed decision for them to be legally in charge of their destiny

Point 3) while it sucks at least they can make an informed decision not something that a minor or someone declared mentally handicapped has the ability to do

What then, are you going to say to my friends? They're not allowed to have girl they love and can can look after better than any other parents i have ever met?

Whoo, asking the state to sponsor eugenics. How could the plan have possibly gone wrong?

Does this guy have a guardian ad litem...? I mean, I'm sure the parents mean well or whatever, but what they're talking about is unacceptable on a lot of levels.

Should the parents of a 22 year old man who has the mental age of a seven year old have the rights to steralise him in case he gets a girlfriend pregnant?
Definitely not!

If he indeed has the mental age of a seven year old, he should be treated accordingly. That means you've got to supervise him just like any other minor of that age.

Instead of even thinking of anything close to sterilization they oughta go ahead and buy him the new Lego Star Wars playset!

I've never even thought of forced castration to be an option - that's like cutting a child's fingers off for stealing from the cookie jar... Or even worse - cutting their fingers off even before they ever tried to. It's appalling!

Actually, I don't think that the term "mental age" is very useful at all. But everyone seems to be using it. The difference is clearly whether or not one is able to fully function as a competent adult. In other words, is capable of functioning independantly and making these types of decisions. Apparently the subject of the OP is not. Hence, sterilization makes sense.

I fail to see why anyone has a problem with that. After all, people who are not allowed to sign contracts for credit cards, most certainly shouldn't be allowed to bring kids into the world as it is all part and parcel of the same thing.
Exactly it is like people with massive injuries that don’t allow them to make a medical decision … who makes that decision THEIR FAMILY

I have a feeling that some people think we are trying to force a line of who can have kids and who cant

What we are advocating is the family rights to make a medical decision for one who is NOT able to for himself

No I did not say that though I think that her legal guardians should be able to make the decision because she is not and will never be in a position to make the decision unlike a minor who will grow up nor will she be in a position to care for the Childs needs when it is born
I think because she is not able to (The same thing is done by families deciding medical care for incapacitated people) make the decision herself it is up to her family to help her do so

So why can't his family make the same decision in respect of a vasectomy? Is it not the same thing?

In any case, giving him a vasectomy is not like castrating him, indeed it is not really even sterilazation. I don't see why people are so angry at what seems to be a perfectly sensible precaution.

Actually, I don't think that the term "mental age" is very useful at all. But everyone seems to be using it. The difference is clearly whether or not one is able to fully function as a competent adult. In other words, is capable of functioning independantly and making these types of decisions. Apparently the subject of the OP is not. Hence, sterilization makes sense.

The title of the OP is in fact 'Steralisation for 22year old man with mental age of 7' so everyone using the term mental age is working within the subject of the OP, then you are not.

After all, people who are not allowed to sign contracts for credit cards, most certainly shouldn't be allowed to bring kids into the world as it is all part and parcel of the same thing.
Then people who are bankrupt or don't have good credit rating aren't allowed to have kids? Besides people with Downs are allowed to sign for credit cards as long as they have a job to pay the bills just like any other 'normal' human being.

He should not be sterilized by force. There is no justification for it in a free society. Pure and simple.

So why can't his family make the same decision in respect of a vasectomy? Is it not the same thing?

In any case, giving him a vasectomy is not like castrating him, indeed it is not really even sterilazation. I don't see why people are so angry at what seems to be a perfectly sensible precaution.
Lol I think they should be able to (we are arguing the same side on this one)

.
Ah. My bad. I must have been thinking of a different disorder. So many disorders these days.

I know, hard to keep track of all these things! ;)

He should not be sterilized by force. There is no justification for it in a free society. Pure and simple.
There is no reason in a free society to justify taking away a legal guardians right to choose a medical procedure that they find beneficial for their charge that will never be in a position to make the decision themselves

There is no reason in a free society to justify taking away a legal guardians right to choose a medical procedure that they find beneficial for their charge that will never be in a position to make the decision themselves

In which case, i believe my (hypothetical) son should have breast implants and penis removal...he acts like a girl anyway, maybe he won't get bullied if he IS one?

It's different from an injury in that he doesn't need this, ah, care. This is the parents saying, "Hey, I don't want you to engage in this behaviour, but society doesn't disapprove enough of it to make it criminal. GIVE ME YOUR SPERMS."

In which case, i believe my (hypothetical) son should have breast implants and penis removal...he acts like a girl anyway, maybe he won't get bullied if he IS one?
That is not necessarily in the best medical interest for the charge
(Though absurdum can be fun it does not make the argument true)

In which case, i believe my (hypothetical) son should have breast implants and penis removal...he acts like a girl anyway, maybe he won't get bullied if he IS one?
Vasectomy is reversible, unlike penis removal, and leaves no psychological trauma.

It's different from an injury in that he doesn't need this, ah, care. This is the parents saying, "Hey, I don't want you to engage in this behaviour, but society doesn't disapprove enough of it to make it criminal. GIVE ME YOUR SPERMS."
Society (at least western) DOES make his having sex illegal essentially

He is not in a position to consent, anyone who has sex with him CAN be charged with rape (as per the Vulnerable adult act)

(depending on the situation with the other person having sex with him)

That is not necessarily in the best medical interest for the charge
(Though absurdum can be fun it does not make the argument true)

It is as true as your argument. You cannot say "There is no reason in a free society to justify taking away a legal guardians right to choose a medical procedure that they find beneficial for their charge that will never be in a position to make the decision themselves" without agreeing to my hypothetical case as well. That crap you kept posting earlier about fallisies shows that - if you make one exception (or something similar, can't remember now) you must make an exception for everything. ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU POSTED THAT LINK EARLIER!

It is as true as your argument. You cannot say "There is no reason in a free society to justify taking away a legal guardians right to choose a medical procedure that they find beneficial for their charge that will never be in a position to make the decision themselves" without agreeing to my hypothetical case as well. That crap you kept posting earlier about fallisies shows that - if you make one exception (or something similar, can't remember now) you must make an exception for everything.
No that “Crap” I posted about fallacies specifically says that just because you make one exception it does not necessarily mean you except everything


You manage to call it crap and then get it totally backwards

You have proof that letting the family make a decision for their mentally handicapped child leads to selective breading and or genocide?

I draw the line at letting their family decide at the same level decided if they are legally competent as an adult

I am not advocating governmental control
I am advocating the family making a medical decision on a procedure for their mentally handicapped individual

If you think the logical fallacy of slippery slope is valid then let me use one of my own

[flawed argument]
Your banning them allowing this procedure will lead to a fascist state where in capacitated people like people in coma are denied medical treatment because no human can make a decision for another human even if that human in question is not capable of making the decision for themselves
Thousands will die because of this … maybe millions
[/flawed argument]


And still you have not drawn the line where human competency begins & where it ends.
If you can give me precise data on that & proof to back it up & proof to where the line of bad parenting intersects with this then perhaps I could agree with you on this.
I'm talking real evidence 3 independent studies without predetermined conclusions drawn.

Where is the line?

They seem to be worried about precedent with the hysterectomy case.

However, a vasectomy does not have the incredible hormonal effect that a hysterectomy does. Should he ever mature to a point where he is competent to make his own decisions, he could have a vasectomy reversed.

Yeah, I think I'm going to go with yes on this one. His guardians can make that decision, as they are the ones who would be responsible in his stead in the event that there was a child

I really must wonder though - if he has the mental age of a seven year old, how interested in sex is he really?

What I don't get is why the parents of the girl opted for a hysterectomy instead of a tubal ligation.

No that “Crap” I posted about fallacies specifically says that just because you make one exception it does not necessarily mean you except everything


You manage to call it crap and then get it totally backwards

What it says, exactly, is If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone How is that backward?

And still you have not drawn the line where human competency begins & where it ends.
If you can give me precise data on that & proof to back it up & proof to where the line of bad parenting intersects with this then perhaps I could agree with you on this.
I'm talking real evidence 3 independent studies without predetermined conclusions drawn.

Where is the line?
Like I said I am drawing the line at where a person can be considered mentally competent as an adult.
Of course there will be “grey” area in the middle where people call it too close to call and then there should be more care taken there
It is not a black and white word we are dealing with people there is lots of grey area

The title of the OP is in fact 'Steralisation for 22year old man with mental age of 7' so everyone using the term mental age is working within the subject of the OP, then you are not.

Which was why I was using it. :rolleyes: In any case, your understanding of the term seems deeply flawed.

Then people who are bankrupt or don't have good credit rating aren't allowed to have kids? Besides people with Downs are allowed to sign for credit cards as long as they have a job to pay the bills just like any other 'normal' human being.

When did I say all people with downs should be sterilized. I said that legal incompetents shouldn't have kids. (And no responsible guardian would let them)

The reason why people are bankrupt, or have bad credit, is because they are judged to be competent to make these decisions in the first place, and understand and appreciate the consequences of them.

Legal incompetents cannot ever be brought to bankruptcy, or be given a bad credit rating because no such agreement with them is ever binding. Thus they can never become indebted. The reason why this is so, is because they are judged not to appreciate the nature and consequences of such decisions. Instead, they have guardians appointed, to act for them in matters like this.

His parents, who I assume are his guardians, have requested a vasectomy - which is not technically a sterilization anyway - as a precaution in order to prevent him fathering unwanted children, which in any case, he will not be able to care for or support. How anyone can have a problem with this is quite beyond me. But I suppose you think Terry Schaivo should have popped a few out before they pulled the plug.

What it says, exactly, is How is that backward?
No what it says is “Just because A happens that does not mean C will happen as well”

The examples on the page I liked do a good job at explaining it

A good example “
i) If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.”

Just like automatic weapons if we allow the parents of a clearly disabled person does not mean that will lead to anything such as genocide

I cant help you if you don’t get that … the material is there … it can also be found under “Slippery slope” as a logical fallacy

I wonder whether this guy cares one way or the other?

There is no reason in a free society to justify taking away a legal guardians right to choose a medical procedure that they find beneficial for their charge that will never be in a position to make the decision themselves

Legal guardians rights must meet best interest cases. This cannot. Because they do not have permanate guardianship (by their own admitance). Since they say its possible for him to have a relationship, their guardianship ends in the event he is married.

There is no justification for his sterilization, what-so-ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise might as well join the Nazi's.

Which was why I was using it. :rolleyes: In any case, your understanding of the term seems deeply flawed.



When did I say all people with downs should be sterilized. I said that legal incompetents shouldn't have kids. (And no responsible guardian would let them)

The reason why people are bankrupt, or have bad credit, is because they are judged to be competent to make these decisions in the first place, and understand and appreciate the consequences of them.

Legal incompetents cannot ever be brought to bankruptcy, or be given a bad credit rating because no such agreement with them is ever binding. Thus they can never become indebted. The reason why this is so, is because they are judged not to appreciate the nature and consequences of such decisions. Instead, they have guardians appointed, to act for them in matters like this.

His parents, who I assume are his guardians, have requested a vasectomy - which is not technically a sterilization anyway - as a precaution in order to prevent him fathering unwanted children, which in any case, he will not be able to care for or support. How anyone can have a problem with this is quite beyond me. But I suppose you think Terry Schaivo should have popped a few out before they pulled the plug.

Read the article before making comments on it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4596493.stm Vasectomy is not mentioned once. Steralisation IS. Read, THEN comment. THEN I will talk to you.

Like I said I am drawing the line at where a person can be considered mentally competent as an adult.
Of course there will be “grey” area in the middle where people call it too close to call and then there should be more care taken there
It is not a black and white word we are dealing with people there is lots of grey area
And this is subject to whose intrpretation?
Your area becomes too grey here.
What is the IQ level that incompetence as a parent begins?
What is the exactr cut-off
How far over the line is the 22 year old example here.

Legal guardians rights must meet best interest cases. This cannot. Because they do not have permanate guardianship (by their own admitance). Since they say its possible for him to have a relationship, their guardianship ends in the event he is married.

There is no justification for his sterilization, what-so-ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise might as well join the Nazi's.
Relationship != marriage
In fact I am not sure he could legally sign a marriage contract … and any sex is illegal (at least in the states) by the vulnerable adults act
Thanks for telling me I should join the nazi’s
because obviously my opinion that guardians should be able to make legal and medical decisions that may be in the best interest of the individual that can not and never will be in the position to make it himself

Obviously I should join the nazi party
:rolleyes:

Read the article before making comments on it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4596493.stm Vasectomy is not mentioned once. Steralisation IS. Read, THEN comment. THEN I will talk to you.

Somehow I doubt they are planing to castrate him. Stop being an ass.

You are wrong and you know it.

Edit: Actually, the parents specifically said they have no problem with him "having a relationship". Therefore, they must have been talking about a vasectomy.

And this is subject to whose intrpretation?
Your area becomes too grey here.
What is the IQ level that incompetence as a parent begins?
What is the exactr cut-off
How far over the line is the 22 year old example here.
Fairly he is no where near being able to make that decision himself again watch the logical fallacy here (not yet there but close)
It should probably be decided on a case by case study
At this point we are into a relativistic morals type of argument “who should make the decision for anybody”

It's not in his best interest. It's in the best interest of some hypothetical child who may or may not happen. It's not an issue for his parents to decide.

It's not in his best interest. It's in the best interest of some hypothetical child who may or may not happen. It's not an issue for his parents to decide.
Oh and how is making sure he has a kid that he is not qualified to care for not in his best interest?

Somehow I doubt they are planing to castrate him. Stop being an ass.

You are wrong and you know it.

They said steralise permanantly on the news...and that was from their mouths not the presenters. The article I linked to says steralise. And the precedent mentioned was for permanent removal of the woman's uterous, what more proof do you need? If you need to refer to someone as an 'ass' to win an argument, don't bother arguing, go back to primary school where you belong.

Your tone is inappropriate.

Clearly, the child would be the charge of the other partner, or in the worst case, the state. No responsibility would fall to this Gavin, because he can bear no weighty responsibility.

So lets say he has a child with his girlfriend, who obviously loves him and understands his disability, lets say, hypothetically that she is quite happy to work to support them, and they hire a carer to assist with both the child and him. Lets say he loves that child with all the fierceness that a child is capable of, plays with it and gives it both his attention and love in such a way that a full time working father cannot do for whatever reason, lets say that child grows up discovering that even his father, who some would say is incapable of a 'normal' life, is indeed capable of love, and that there are people who can accept others for their differences and strengths no matter what society may say about them.



The woman should be arrested for sexual abuse. A person with the mental capacity of a seven year old child does not have the mental capacity to have consensual sex. Just because the body is that of a full grown man doesn't mean that he is anything more than a child.

They said steralise permanantly on the news...and that was from their mouths not the presenters. The article I linked to says steralise. And the precedent mentioned was for permanent removal of the woman's uterous, what more proof do you need? If you need to refer to someone as an 'ass' to win an argument, don't bother arguing, go back to primary school where you belong.

Well how does one sterlize a male without removal of the testes? As they have no problem with him "having" a realtionship, what else could they have meant other than a vasectomy?

(Which technically would render him "sterile" absent further medical intervention.)

It's not my problem that the BBC is being sloppy as usual. Maybe you should be less patronizng too.

Well how does one sterlize a male without removal of the testes? As they have no problem with him "having" a realtionship, what else could they have meant other than a vasectomy?

(Which technically would render him "sterile" absent further medical intervention.)

It's not my problem that the BBC is being sloppy as usual. Maybe you should be less patronizng too.

The BBC is being sloppy by filming someone say steralise permanently? I see...Then perhaps the BBC is also being sloppy when it showed films of the Tsunami on Boxing Day? Maybe it was only a three mm wave that hit?

Besides, removal of the testes doesn't neccesarily mean removal of the penis. You can actually have sex without the testes.

The BBC is being sloppy by filming someone say steralise permanently? I see...Then perhaps the BBC is also being sloppy when it showed films of the Tsunami on Boxing Day? Maybe it was only a three mm wave that hit?

You are getting off the point. They never explained what was meant by "steralize." I cannot see how it could mean anything other than vasectomy given the parents other statements in respect of their other comments regarding relationships.

However, because they are being less than precise, people are now choosing to view it as castration.

Let me ask you this, if indeed it is just a matter of a vasectomy, would you still have a problem with it?

:P

True...

but still, there is the possibility of him beggining a 'relationship' with someone with a close problem to his... as far as the impregnating... Why should his parents care? If I was retarded, I wouldn't want my parents to cut my...tubes... :D :mp5: ow

You are getting off the point. They never explained what was meant by "steralize." I cannot see how it could mean anything other than vasectomy given the parents other statements in respect of their other comments regarding relationships.

However, because they are being less than precise, people are now choosing to view it as castration.

Let me ask you this, if indeed it is just a matter of a vasectomy, would you still have a problem with it?

Yes, because Gavin should still have the right to decide for himself. Either way, HE IS AN ADULT, and should be treated as such - and even for a child - i don't think a child should have medical precedures, temporary or not, performed on them unless it is absolutely essential to his or her survival. This, operation temporary or not, is NOT essential to Gavin's survival.

My girlfriend's sister is mentally retarded and mildly autistic. She is 16 and has a mental age of about 7 or 8. If she were to have a child, her parents would become the legal guardians because she is incapable of raising the child. I don't really see how it would be humane to try to let a mentally handicapped person be responsible for another human life. That said, it would seem that the parents should be perfectly capable of keeping this guy from having sex with anyone. However, because his physical body would be mature and have natural hormonal urges like the rest of us do (another thing I've seen firsthand, it sucks) he could end up being more difficult to control than you might think. I say leave it to the parents discretion. Sure, they could probably keep him from getting anyone pregnant if they took proper care of him, but on the other hand when will he ever need to get anyone pregnant?

Either way, HE IS AN ADULT
Actually, this isn't really the case. He is incapable of caring for himself, so hims parents are responsible for him. That's like saying that the mentally insane should be given the right to decide whether they want to accept treatment for their illness or not in an institution, despite the fact they are incapable of making that decision.....oh wait, that leads to a whole different problem we have in society now.

Actually, this isn't really the case. He is incapable of caring for himself, so hims parents are responsible for him. That's like saying that the mentally insane should be given the right to decide whether they want to accept treatment for their illness or not in an institution, despite the fact they are incapable of making that decision.....oh wait, that leads to a whole different problem we have in society now.
Nevertheless in body he is an adult. Ok, maybe his being a parent is not ideal, but come on, half the people on here probably shouldn't be a parent, i don't know if i ever should be. And as for 'mad', as long as they have'n't committed murder or rape why shouldn't they be allowed to refuse treatment?

Yes, because Gavin should still have the right to decide for himself. Either way, HE IS AN ADULT, and should be treated as such - and even for a child - i don't think a child should have medical precedures, temporary or not, performed on them unless it is absolutely essential to his or her survival. This, operation temporary or not, is NOT essential to Gavin's survival.

Yah, he's not an adult though. Not legally. Which is why he has a guardian. And his guardian is making a perfectly acceptable family planning decision. Frankly, I think it speaks rather well of them that they are not simply trying to deny him having a realtionship in the first place. (Which they could quite easily).

Face it, he can't care for himself. Children are not an option for him. I just don't see what is inhumane about it.

Yah, he's not an adult though. Not legally. Which is why he has a guardian. And his guardian is making a perfectly acceptable family planning decision. Frankly, I think it speaks rather well of them that they are not simply trying to deny him having a realtionship in the first place. (Which they could quite easily).

Face it, he can't care for himself. Children are not an option for him. I just don't see what is inhumane about it.

People said exactly the same thing about slaves and Jews....are you saying what happened to them was right? Because that's what it seems like to us.

Relationship != marriage
In fact I am not sure he could legally sign a marriage contract … and any sex is illegal (at least in the states) by the vulnerable adults act
Thanks for telling me I should join the nazi’s
because obviously my opinion that guardians should be able to make legal and medical decisions that may be in the best interest of the individual that can not and never will be in the position to make it himself

Obviously I should join the nazi party
:rolleyes:

They are guardians, not owners. And they do not possess ultimate rights of determination (the courts ultimately do). (Oklahoma, and Minnesota state laws do not define all state laws). Stick it in your ear if you think Guardians can make any determination they deem is in "the best interest" of the person their call is persuant to court determination... On top of that, mentally retarded persons are free to marry, and have sex.... That right can only be suspended by a court hearing (once again, courts possess ultimate authority on this issue of deliberation)... Guardians rights are subject to judicial oversight....

People said exactly the same thing about slaves and Jews....are you saying what happened to them was right? Because that's what it seems like to us.

It's completely different. You seem to be suggesting that this is the begining of some type of eugenics program. It certianly is not.

As I said before, I am not suggesting that all handicapped people should be prevented from having children. But clearly there are cases, where that is completely undesirable because they lack the mental capacity to make an informed decision about reproduction or care for the child adequately after it is born.

Basically it comes down to whether or not a person has a legal guardian. And if they do then this type of decision should rest with the guardian who is, after all, best able to judge. This case seems to fit under that.

It's completely different. You seem to be suggesting that this is the begining of some type of eugenics program. It certianly is not.

As I said before, I am not suggesting that all handicapped people should be prevented from having children. But clearly there are cases, where that is completely undesirable because they lack the mental capacity to make an informed decision about reproduction or care for the child adequately after it is born.

Basically it comes down to whether or not a person has a legal guardian. And if they do then this type of decision should rest with the guardian who is, after all, best able to judge. This case seems to fit under that.

B***S**T

B***S**T
Wow what a well reasoned argument … you convinced me :rolleyes:

They are guardians, not owners. And they do not possess ultimate rights of determination (the courts ultimately do). (Oklahoma, and Minnesota state laws do not define all state laws). Stick it in your ear if you think Guardians can make any determination they deem is in "the best interest" of the person their call is persuant to court determination... On top of that, mentally retarded persons are free to marry, and have sex.... That right can only be suspended by a court hearing (once again, courts possess ultimate authority on this issue of deliberation)... Guardians rights are subject to judicial oversight....
And I am not saying there should not be judicial oversight
But lets say this person DID want to proceed with with a procedure even if it was not in their best interest … (and as far as I can tell this may be the case it did not state his wishes in the article) should the guardian have a say in weather or not this person should do the contra indicated procedure?
I say yes because THEY are in charge of keeping this person safe and well they should defiantly have a say in if the person can go through a risky or un necessary procedure

This is the opposite it is a procedure that could save this person from a situation where he is NOT in a position to be the children’s father (he does not have the ability to make informed decisions for him self much less the minor that he would be in charge of)

Yes, because Gavin should still have the right to decide for himself. Either way, HE IS AN ADULT, and should be treated as such - and even for a child - i don't think a child should have medical precedures, temporary or not, performed on them unless it is absolutely essential to his or her survival. This, operation temporary or not, is NOT essential to Gavin's survival.
He is NOT an adult in anything but age
We designate adult as a certain age but that’s really just because that is generally when they have the potential for making an informed decision (statistically)

He may be old enough but that does not mean he understand what’s going on completely and the complete depth of the consequences of his actions (nor would I expect him to, its sad but its life)

He is NOT in a position of adult hood in ability to make his own decisions much less the decisions of a minor for the next 18 years of the kids life

1 Male children need a strong and decent male rolemodel from day 1. They need to be taught what being a man is about. Let's face it. Women can and do raise kids alone. It's not the optimal situation. Boys raised by single mothers have a much higher rate of criminal behavior. They're trying on the roles that society shows them in movies and magazines (often the role of a ganster) because they don't have a real father to show them that being a man isn't about taking what you want at the expense of others, but rather taking responsibility as a provider, protector, and leader.

So by your logic I am going to be a ganster or something like that.....Screw you My Mother did a F**ken good job teaching me what a man should be...
try thinking before posting shit here.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies reborn]1 Male children need a strong and decent male rolemodel from day 1. They need to be taught what being a man is about. Let's face it. Women can and do raise kids alone. It's not the optimal situation. Boys raised by single mothers have a much higher rate of criminal behavior. They're trying on the roles that society shows them in movies and magazines (often the role of a ganster) because they don't have a real father to show them that being a man isn't about taking what you want at the expense of others, but rather taking responsibility as a provider, protector, and leader.[quote/]

So by your logic I am going to be a ganster or something like that.....Screw you My Mother did a F**ken good job teaching me what a man should be...
try thinking before posting shit here.
That’s not what he said … might want to re read it then follow your own advice there (thinking about it before posting)

He said “higher percentage” which by no means you WILL display criminal behavior just that there is a higher chance of it.

ah yes.....sorry about that...he just struck a nerve with me just then...

ah yes.....sorry about that...he just struck a nerve with me just then...
Its fine we all get that way over things that have happened in our life’s … as humans that seems to happen to all of us :) the trick is to make a well formed argument now on why he is wrong :)

Blah. Do I need to state my opinion on this?
Too many (stupid and ignorant) people. Last thing we need is more retarded people. He's damn lucky they didn't put him to sleep, too.

Blah. Do I need to state my opinion on this?
Too many (stupid and ignorant) people. Last thing we need is more retarded people. He's damn lucky they didn't put him to sleep, too.
Yikes and why exactly does he deserve death? He may not be “up to par” and I have some issues with his making his own reproductive decisions but I by no means wish him dead

Yikes and why exactly does he deserve death? He may not be “up to par” and I have some issues with his making his own reproductive decisions but I by no means wish him dead

Well he didn't actually say he should be put to death. Just that he is lucky that he wasn't.

Well he didn't actually say he should be put to death. Just that he is lucky that he wasn't.
Ahhh I see sorry did not mean to misrepresent the statement

Under that premise, let's also sterilize the handicapped, cuz, you know they are challenged and just not as good as us normal folk. Also, the homeless usually aren't that smart, so screw them too.

If his guardians say its in his interest to be sterilized then it should be done, it's not goverment's job. The US had a horrid eugenics problem last century, it's not something that should be visited again anywhere.

Under that premise, let's also sterilize the handicapped, cuz, you know they are challenged and just not as good as us normal folk. Also, the homeless usually aren't that smart, so screw them too.

If his guardians say its in his interest to be sterilized then it should be done, it's not goverment's job. The US had a horrid eugenics problem last century, it's not something that should be visited again anywhere.
I agree it is the responsibility of the guardian (with proper supervision of the courts) to make sure it is a valid decision based on his 1) health 2) wellbeing 3) wishes (though health and wellbeing in this case trump 3) )

Well...I've read enough here to know that, apparently, I should sign up for the Nazi party.

I'm all in favor of having him sterilized. Let's break this down a little bit.
ok.

either he is going to have children in the future, or he isn't.
If he isn't going to have children, and there are no (or negligible) health issues with the sterilization, then there is no problem.

If he is going to have children, we need to decide a few things.
Does Gavin know what he's getting into, and want the children?
If Gavin does NOT know what he's doing when having children, then I think the guardians are well within their right to protect him from this unforseen consequence, just as they are within their rights to protect him from sharp knives if he doesn't realize he will get cut.

If Gavin DOES know what he's getting into, and wants to have children, my next question is whether he has the right to have children. Who will look after the children, since Gavin is not able to look after himself (which was stated quite clearly in the article, and I'll assume to be true). The parents will end up with the responsibility of looking after the children, most probably. If so, do they have the right to say "no, we don't want the child to get conceived". I'd strongly say that they do have that right, although it's a very questionable argument. You could argue that the child could be put up for adoption, or similar. But, honestly, other than Gavin's human drive to procreate, what's the advantage to Gavin to father a child that he doesn't see, as it gets set up for adoption? So, really, it's his parents that end up with the responsibility of another child. One which could conceivably require constant care.

Also, I think we can assume that Gavin isn't able to make his own educated decisions, since he can't take care of himself. (I know that's a false assumption, I'm making a logical leap here. I can justify it if you want). There are reversible "permanant" sterilization options, as has been stated earlier. If Gavin becomes capable of making his own choices, he will also be capable of requesting that this procedure is reversed.

So, for his sterilization to be a problem we need to have all these things happen:
1) Gavin is capable of understanding what it means to have a child
2) Gavin wants to have a child
3) Gavin has more right to have his child raised with him than his parents do in their desire to not raise another (potentially retarded) child
4) Gavin is able to make the decision to raise a child, but is unable to make the decision to have the operation reversed

People ask where the line is drawn. If Gavin can be sterilized, why don't we do it to homeless? Stupid people?
Well, it's pretty clear to me. The line is drawn where the person is unable to make their own decisions, and will never be able to make their own decision about this. If the procedure is reversible, then while Gavin is unable to make a decision, it should rest in the hands of the guardians (and the courts, to make sure the guardians don't abuse their power), and when Gavin does become able to make this decision, he can choose whether to have the operation reversed.

That's not quite the same as sterilizing black people, now is it?

Nor stupid people. Unless the people are so stupid that they are unable to understand the decision, in which case they have a guardian to make the decision for them. That's why we have guardians. It's their role.

There was the example of the person choosing to have their male child turned into a girl. Well, I don't think that's such a silly example. If the child is really effeminite, and you believe that it's better for them to have a sex change, then that should be allowed (and there is actually a precedent for this! I think it was eleven years old or something like that, here in Australia). Obviously, the courts would be involved to check if it really is in the childs best interests, and not just personal bias from the guardian. And, obviously, if the operation is non-reversible, then the decision must be weighed all the more carefully, and if possible, put off until the child can make their own choice on the matter. And, obviously, the child in question should have as much impact as possible, and their desires should be taken into account. As much as possible, while still bearing in mind that the child is unable to make an informed decision on the topic.

I see no evidence that this hasn't happened with Gavin, although obviously the news article was extremely scarce on details.

I see no problem with the guardians doing what does not appear to be a harmful act to their charge, because they believe it is in their charges, and societies, best interests.

Throw as many examples of people with mental problems living full and healthy lives, raising their children in a beneficial environment as you want at me. I'll happily counter with "well, if they can do that they are obviously able to take care of themselves, and make informed decisions". It does not negate the fact that someone who is NOT able to take care of themselves and make informed decisions is unable to take care of someone else, and make informed decisions on behalf of someone else.

So...am I a nazi?

This guy has the same right as every other person to enjoy a satisfying sexual relationship. It's part of being human, and we can't deny him that. However, I'm a big fan of sexual responsibility. Having a vasectomy, I believe, is far less physiologically traumatic for a man than having his balls completely removed. The testes are essential in managing his sex hormones, but his vas defrens are merely a path for taddies, much like the fallopian tubes.

If he cannot be responsible for his own ability to create life, then that responsibility must be managed by his guardians/parents. Having a vasectomy is nothing like having a complete hysterectomy. It can be reversed. He'll still have a normal sex drive. He'll still be capable of performing in a sexual relationship. Having this man sterilised may also prevent an unwanted child or an abortion, which I believe are both far more unfortunate prospects.

Honestly, I see this as being at the level of incest.

It's not neccissarrily immoral for jr. to go destroy the gene pool. It's just going to make an already self-damaging species that much more damaged.

I just hope the kid isn't that strong. Do you have any idea how screwed up it would be if he managed to rape some other screwed up person and impregnate them? (I'm not saying this is his tendancy, but his situation is not one that lends to wonderful mental stability)

Sure. With the growing survivability rate of people with defective genes that would have been lethal 50 years ago it's a good thing that some are being weeded out (although they aren't lethal in this case I won't miss 'em).


I don't suppose, in your narrow Nazi mind, you realise how disgusting that post was, do you?

No, I thought not.

Ubermenschen and all that?

Weed the untermenschen out?

When the jackboot fits....

If there is such a thing as 'defective' genes, I would say they do less harm to the world then defective brains and Nazi mindsets....take note.

Here is my final two pence on the subject.

Gavin, like any other HUMAN BEING should have the right to decide for himself what happens to HIS body. NO-ONE should have the right over someone else's body. That is what we call ethics. Sure, he may be - as you americans on here so brutally call it - mentally retarded but as per my previous statements on here, I have known many people that have been mentally retarded. One thing you all seem to be forgetting is that Gavin is a Human Being, just like you. In fact, if you were in HIS position, what would you wish to be the outcome of this? Come on...I dare you, put yourself in HIS position. Your parents want to steralise YOU so you don't pass on a gene that you have that makes you what you are. So far, you have led a full life, you're 22 and like playing computer games - you're getting sexually active, and there's this girl you like. She likes you too. You may have the learning capacity of a 7 year old, but you know this, you understand what it means. You understand that one day, if you had kids you'd pass on the gene that makes you this way; except you don't, because your parents haven't bothered trying to tell you about this - they have spent their time trying to get the rights to have you steralised instead. They haven't explained that contraception exists because to them, you don't deserve to know. They just want to have you steralised. You don't even know about that, they haven't bothered to tell you. There was a camera man in your room today filming you play video games with your dad - why was he there? Mum and dad don't tell you, they think it'd upset you. But it wouldn't, would it? Because you don't know what steralise means, because they haven't told you.

Put yourself in THAT position and tell me you'd still want it to go ahead, I dare you. Don't think in terms of GENE POOL because he wouldn't understand, and nor would you. Don't think in terms of retarded because he wouldn't understand, nor would you. DON'T think in terms of parents know best because he wouldn't understand that, he'd just understand that someone was going to take something away from him, take away a freedom, the ultimate freedom, the freedom of having a child; but of course, you wouldn't understand that even, because they haven't told you, no-one's told you, what having a child means.

<snip>
I would support their decision to sterilise me.
I am mentally competent. If I had a defective gene such as Gavin's, that did not affect me but would affect my children, I would get a sterilisation.
If I were unfit to raise a child, I should not have the right to create one.

I would support their decision to sterilise me.
I am mentally competent. If I had a defective gene such as Gavin's, I would get a sterilisation.
You're STILL thinking like YOU, think like Gavin for once for christs sake! He doesn't understand that he IS defective, his parents have been telling him all his life he is perfect, you wouldn't know any different!!

<snip>
Thinking like Gavin:
My parents love me, I trust them, so I don't care what other people say.
My parents have always taken care of me, I trust them, so I don't care what other people say.
My parents say I need this operation, I trust them, so I don't care what other people say.
I love my parents, I trust them, so I don't care what other people say.
I will have the operation.

because he wouldn't understand that, he'd just understand that someone was going to take something away from him, take away a freedom, the ultimate freedom, the freedom of having a child; but of course, you wouldn't understand that even, because they haven't told you, no-one's told you, what having a child means.
Do you ever thijnk about what you say?
He has no concept of what he would lose, and yet he would miss it?

And I am not saying there should not be judicial oversight
But lets say this person DID want to proceed with with a procedure even if it was not in their best interest … (and as far as I can tell this may be the case it did not state his wishes in the article) should the guardian have a say in weather or not this person should do the contra indicated procedure?
I say yes because THEY are in charge of keeping this person safe and well they should defiantly have a say in if the person can go through a risky or un necessary procedure

This is the opposite it is a procedure that could save this person from a situation where he is NOT in a position to be the children’s father (he does not have the ability to make informed decisions for him self much less the minor that he would be in charge of)

Oh, they have a say, however, in any procedure such as this, it is applicable to judicial oversight (which is what is occuring in this case and the previous)... Guardianship does not grant you overlord rights... And merely because they think it is in his best interest, it is not ultimately their decision alone... Courts exist to protect the rights of dependents (even against their guardians if necessary)... Which is what is occuring here.

If the courts were inclined to deny such upon a female in similar cases, they will likely rule even more towards Gavin as a male, in the same case... There is little justification for sterilization based merely off of "inability to care for a child"...

Oh, they have a say, however, in any procedure such as this, it is applicable to judicial oversight (which is what is occuring in this case and the previous)... Guardianship does not grant you overlord rights... And merely because they think it is in his best interest, it is not ultimately their decision alone... Courts exist to protect the rights of dependents (even against their guardians if necessary)... Which is what is occuring here.

If the courts were inclined to deny such upon a female in similar cases, they will likely rule even more towards Gavin as a male, in the same case... There is little justification for sterilization based merely off of "inability to care for a child"...
The problem is that when they perform hysterectomies, for some incomprehensible reason they often carve out the ovaries as well. Thus getting that girl a hysterectomy would have had a huge impact on her life and health (it is a major operation).
Giving a man a vasectomy might cause slightly elevated blood pressure in his old age but other than that it is harmless.
They are in no way similar operations.

Anybody who has sex with the 22-year-old in question is a rapist. Because he cannot give consent, legally, any sexual contact with him would be non-consentual. I think his parents should focus more on keeping sexual predators away from their child, and less about helping him have a safe sex life. Of course, I also think they have the right and the responsibility to get their kid a vasectomy, since it would be absolutely abhorently wrong to allow him to father a child.

The problem is that when they perform hysterectomies, for some incomprehensible reason they often carve out the ovaries as well. Thus getting that girl a hysterectomy would have had a huge impact on her life and health (it is a major operation).
Giving a man a vasectomy might cause slightly elevated blood pressure in his old age but other than that it is harmless.
They are in no way similar operations.

Point of fact 1. He isn't just Mentally handicapped, there is a physical handicap there too, therefore any operation he has now WILL affect him a hell of a lot more than someone without his disability. It is in every way similar.
Point of fact 2. He has a weaker imune system than you or I, therefore this or ANY operation is potentially fatal.

Anybody who has sex with the 22-year-old in question is a rapist. Because he cannot give consent, legally, any sexual contact with him would be non-consentual. I think his parents should focus more on keeping sexual predators away from their child, and less about helping him have a safe sex life. Of course, I also think they have the right and the responsibility to get their kid a vasectomy, since it would be absolutely abhorently wrong to allow him to father a child.
Agreed across the board

Point of fact 1. He isn't just Mentally handicapped, there is a physical handicap there too, therefore any operation he has now WILL affect him a hell of a lot more than someone without his disability. It is in every way similar.
Point of fact 1. A hysterectomy is major surgery, a vasectomy is not.
Your lack of comprehension of this fact is truly stunning.

Point of fact 2. He has a weaker imune system than you or I, therefore this or ANY operation is potentially fatal.
Proof? That is not mentioned in the report or any of the material I read about Holoprosencephaly.

Point of fact 1. He isn't just Mentally handicapped, there is a physical handicap there too, therefore any operation he has now WILL affect him a hell of a lot more than someone without his disability. It is in every way similar.
Point of fact 2. He has a weaker imune system than you or I, therefore this or ANY operation is potentially fatal.
Oh and how will his physical disability do that? I did not see that anywhere in the article (actualy curious as to the differences between this surgery and on on a fully abled person)

Oh and how will his physical disability do that? I did not see that anywhere in the article (actualy curious as to the differences between this surgery and on on a fully abled person)

The main difference is that this is forced surgery.
When you give me your answer to my 'final two pence' I'll give you an answer to this.

The main difference is that this is forced surgery.
When you give me your answer to my 'final two pence' I'll give you an answer to this.
But I thought your claim was that his PHISICAL disability would cause problems

Hmm...

If the guy truly has the mental capacity of a 7 year old, what makes them think he would want a girlfriend? Most 7 year olds I've seen think girls have cooties. :)

Here is my final two pence on the subject.

Gavin, like any other HUMAN BEING should have the right to decide for himself what happens to HIS body. NO-ONE should have the right over someone else's body. That is what we call ethics. Sure, he may be - as you americans on here so brutally call it - but as per my previous statements on here, I have known many people that have been . One thing you all seem to be forgetting is that Gavin is a Human Being, just like you. In fact, if you were in HIS position, what would you wish to be the outcome of this? Come on...I dare you, put yourself in HIS position. Your parents want to steralise YOU so you don't pass on a gene that you have that makes you what you are. So far, you have led a full life, you're 22 and like playing computer games - you're getting , and there's this girl you like. She likes you too. You may have the learning capacity of a 7 year old, but you know this, you understand what it means. You understand that one day, if you had kids you'd pass on the gene that makes you this way; except you don't, because your parents haven't bothered trying to tell you about this - they have spent their time trying to get the rights to have you steralised instead. They haven't explained that contraception exists because to them, you don't deserve to know. They just want to have you steralised. You don't even know about that, they haven't bothered to tell you. There was a camera man in your room today filming you play video games with your dad - why was he there? Mum and dad don't tell you, they think it'd . But it wouldn't, would it? Because you don't know what means, because they haven't told you.

Put yourself in THAT position and tell me you'd still want it to go ahead, I dare you. Don't think in terms of because he wouldn't understand, and nor would you. Don't think in terms of because he wouldn't understand, nor would you. DON'T think in terms of because he wouldn't understand that, he'd just understand that someone was going to take something away from him, take away a freedom, the ultimate freedom, the freedom of having a child; but of course, you wouldn't understand that even, because they haven't told you, no-one's told you, what having a child means.


That’s all good and fine … I do think his feelings should be considered in the process but ultimately because of his condition it is up to his parents or guardians to maintain his health and wellbeing not his own. They can agree and respect his opinion up until that opinion causes him harm (and I believe they should do so)

Right now we have no idea what his wishes are they just stated those of the parents because ultimately THEY ARE MAKING THE DECISION because they are the one responsible for caring for this being

For all we know he is the one that requested the surgery but they are focusing on the parents because even now they are in charge of his wellbeing

How do you know he doesn’t want the surgery and more then I know that he does?

That’s all good and fine … I do think his feelings should be considered in the process but ultimately because of his condition it is up to his parents or guardians to maintain his health and wellbeing not his own. They can agree and respect his opinion up until that opinion causes him harm (and I believe they should do so)

Right now we have no idea what his wishes are they just stated those of the parents because ultimately THEY ARE MAKING THE DECISION because they are the one responsible for caring for this being

For all we know he is the one that requested the surgery but they are focusing on the parents because even now they are in charge of his wellbeing

How do you know he doesn’t want the surgery and more then I know that he does?

I don't, but I DO know that he doesn't know about it and that he didn't request it. Want to know how I know? Because they said so in the news report. They said they didn't want him to know about it because it would upset him
Ok?

In charge of his wellbeing???? then why not just explain what contraception is? and ask him to use it at all times? Or how about try and stop him having sexual experiences another way? It should all be his choice ultimately.

Thought I'd throw in my two-bit's worth to the argument.

Seeing as Gavin is of a mental age where he is considered under the legal guardianship of his parents, I believe that this operation should be allowed to proceed under strict supervision of the courts.

The parents obviously feel that, at present, their son is both incapable of fathering and raising a child. Also, they are concerned with passing on his condition, which is hereditary and more than 50% likely to be passed on to the progeny.

What they are proposing is a simple, reversible operation that, should Gavin find himself in a loving relationship where both involved decide that they are able to, and would like to, have a child, the procedure can be undone and full sexual functionality restored.

There is no argument in the "Society will end up cutting out the unwanted genes" theory. For this to be valid there needs to be even a sniff of governmental command. What the parents are doing is taking the courts advice. There is no legislation being passed to say "If Gavin undergoes the operation, all other people with any negative characteristics must go and have the snip." I have a deformed right foot. Does this mean I have to go get my tubes cut too? No, because I do not feel it is in my own best interest.

However, the rape argument also holds sway. It would indeed be considered statutory rape. However, take the case that Gavin finds a girl- older than his "menta age", and above the age of 18- and begins a fulfilling, mutually happy relationship. By law, there is nothing to stop them getting married. There is nothing to stop them getting a house together. They can have a joint bank account. So who the hell are we to say that these two people cannot have sex, and cannot have a child?

In my opinion, the parents should be allowed to make-with guidance from the medical profession and the courts- this decision for their son who is currently under their care, living under their roof, and their legal responsibility. However, should Gavin meet a girl in the future and settle in to a loving relationship, the opportunity to father a child, which as any biologist will say is one of the driving primeval forces behind human existence, should NOT be permanently denied to him by law, medecine, or anything else.

Thought I'd throw in my two-bit's worth to the argument.

Seeing as Gavin is of a mental age where he is considered under the legal guardianship of his parents, I believe that this operation should be allowed to proceed under strict supervision of the courts.

The parents obviously feel that, at present, their son is both incapable of fathering and raising a child. Also, they are concerned with passing on his condition, which is hereditary and more than 50% likely to be passed on to the progeny.

What they are proposing is a simple, reversible operation that, should Gavin find himself in a loving relationship where both involved decide that they are able to, and would like to, have a child, the procedure can be undone and full sexual functionality restored.

There is no argument in the "Society will end up cutting out the unwanted genes" theory. For this to be valid there needs to be even a sniff of governmental command. What the parents are doing is taking the courts advice. There is no legislation being passed to say "If Gavin undergoes the operation, all other people with any negative characteristics must go and have the snip." I have a deformed right foot. Does this mean I have to go get my tubes cut too? No, because I do not feel it is in my own best interest.

However, the rape argument also holds sway. It would indeed be considered statutory rape. However, take the case that Gavin finds a girl- older than his "menta age", and above the age of 18- and begins a fulfilling, mutually happy relationship. By law, there is nothing to stop them getting married. There is nothing to stop them getting a house together. They can have a joint bank account. So who the hell are we to say that these two people cannot have sex, and cannot have a child?

In my opinion, the parents should be allowed to make-with guidance from the medical profession and the courts- this decision for their son who is currently under their care, living under their roof, and their legal responsibility. However, should Gavin meet a girl in the future and settle in to a loving relationship, the opportunity to father a child, which as any biologist will say is one of the driving primeval forces behind human existence, should NOT be permanently denied to him by law, medecine, or anything else.

And that is exactly my opinion (but not sure about his ability to sign a marriage contract … but that is a legal issue … I assume like minors the parents can approve the contract and allow it)

Thought I'd throw in my two-bit's worth to the argument.
However, the rape argument also holds sway. It would indeed be considered statutory rape. However, take the case that Gavin finds a girl- older than his "menta age", and above the age of 18- and begins a fulfilling, mutually happy relationship. By law, there is nothing to stop them getting married. There is nothing to stop them getting a house together. They can have a joint bank account. So who the hell are we to say that these two people cannot have sex, and cannot have a child?


How about the fact that someone with the mental age of 7 would not be a good candidate for parenthood?

Would you wish someone who may not have the CAPACITY for parenthood, to have the risk of producing offspring? How is that fair on any offspring?

If a seven-year-old child accidentally drowns his/her hamster while attempting to give it a bath... well, that's one thing.

Now imagine that seven-year-old child stuck inside a full-grown physical shell... and imagine the hamster is a three-month-old baby.

How about the fact that someone with the mental age of 7 would not be a good candidate for parenthood?

Would you wish someone who may not have the CAPACITY for parenthood, to have the risk of producing offspring? How is that fair on any offspring?

If a seven-year-old child accidentally drowns his/her hamster while attempting to give it a bath... well, that's one thing.

Now imagine that seven-year-old child stuck inside a full-grown physical shell... and imagine the hamster is a three-month-old baby.
True in effect the legal guardian of this kid would end up essentially being the guardian of the 22 year old. What if they decline that responsibility? I assume the kid will be given up to foster care or adoption but again who decides to give the kid up for adoption?

If I say the guardian there will be an uproar but the 22 year old does NOT have the ability to make an informed decision on the matter.

(sorry kind of rambling) but really what IF a kid is produced in this situation because he does not have sterilization … what if the mother like him is disabled?

I am of the opinion that everyone with a severe congenital disability, and everyone unable to look after children, should be sterilized. I don't like the idea of weakening the human race by successive generations getting more and more defects.

At the very least, you should have the same restrictions placed on you for having biological children as you would have if you would like to adopt a child. THato nly makes sense to me.

Well he is gonna GET a forced steralisation if his parents are allowed to do this - so would you abort a child with Downs Syndrome then? - A disability with which the child lives a full life and plays a fantastic part in family/community life - brings families together...I'll tell you what, shall I just kill my brother? He has Downs, perhaps a man (20yr old) with a 4 year old mentality should not exist? Is that what you are saying?

I think more to the point (and less of a straw man argument): Can a man with the capacity of a seven year old care for a normal child? What if the child is also born mentally handicapped? With the right of reproduction also comes a responsibility for the welfare of the child. I for one don't think he'd be able to care for any offspring he has, and I'm sure the new grandparents would not want yet another child to care for, and a child he is, at least mentally.

I recall a chilling story in the New Orleans newspaper years back.

Two severely disabled persons fell in love and eventually got married.

Had the story ended with the 'wishing them well, love overcomes, blah blah...' I would have thought nothing of it, but that the bit was just a filler fluff. However, the story mentioned that these two were trying to reproduce, WTF?

What chilled me about the story was this. These two persons, BOTH, had the same form of disability. (some genetic muscular degenerative disease, if I recall properly.) At the time of the posting of the story BOTH of these persons required 24/7 hour care. They were not merely wheelchair bound.

That they could find love with each other, GREAT, more power to them, but... considering both of them lost big time on the genetic shuffle, and that their ailments were progressive, WTF were they thinking about in regards to having kids....

I recall a chilling story in the New Orleans newspaper years back.

Two severely disabled persons fell in love and eventually got married.

Had the story ended with the 'wishing them well, love overcomes, blah blah...' I would have thought nothing of it, but that the bit was just a filler fluff. However, the story mentioned that these two were trying to reproduce, WTF?

What chilled me about the story was this. These two persons, BOTH, had the same form of disability. (some genetic muscular degenerative disease, if I recall properly.) At the time of the posting of the story BOTH of these persons required 24/7 hour care. They were not merely wheelchair bound.

That they could find love with each other, GREAT, more power to them, but... considering both of them lost big time on the genetic shuffle, and that their ailments were progressive, WTF were they thinking about in regards to having kids....

You would think people would think less about their wishes (having a baby) and more about the life they are trying to bring this kid into.

I think more to the point (and less of a straw man argument): Can a man with the capacity of a seven year old care for a normal child? What if the child is also born mentally handicapped? With the right of reproduction also comes a responsibility for the welfare of the child. I for one don't think he'd be able to care for any offspring he has, and I'm sure the new grandparents would not want yet another child to care for, and a child he is, at least mentally.

Exactly.

We shouldn't be debating the 'rights' of this situation.

We should debating the responibilities.

The man in question is unlikely to be capable of dealing with the responsibilities, even if the child IS born perfectly okay.

Thus, to avoid deliberately placing a child in the potential path of harm - the 'rights' of this individual need to be considered IN THE CONTEXT of the responsibilites.

True in effect the legal guardian of this kid would end up essentially being the guardian of the 22 year old. What if they decline that responsibility? I assume the kid will be given up to foster care or adoption but again who decides to give the kid up for adoption?

If I say the guardian there will be an uproar but the 22 year old does NOT have the ability to make an informed decision on the matter.

(sorry kind of rambling) but really what IF a kid is produced in this situation because he does not have sterilization … what if the mother like him is disabled?

Exactly.

We all know, kids rough-and-tumble. What if the seven-year-old mentality in the grown-man-body decide to rough-and-tumble the heavily-pregnant-mother?

Why compund risks?

Exactly.

We all know, kids rough-and-tumble. What if the seven-year-old mentality in the grown-man-body decide to rough-and-tumble the heavily-pregnant-mother?

Why compund risks?
And how about the legal decisions for the baby … someone not qualified to make their own informed decision can hardly be held responsible for all those decisions for the first 18 years of the Childs life

And how about the legal decisions for the baby … someone not qualified to make their own informed decision can hardly be held responsible for all those decisions for the first 18 years of the Childs life

Precisely. The man with a mental age of seven cannot be a legal guardian in any real sense. He cannot sign a consent form for sugery, for example.

In fact - having a mental age of seven.. it could be assumed he couldn't even comprehend a consent form... and even if he did... his consent would be valueless.

Whichever way you look at it, the argument of 'rights' in this case, means divesting 'responsibility' on someone else... either the parents, the prospective 'mother', or the state.

You would think people would think less about their wishes (having a baby) and more about the life they are trying to bring this kid into.
You mean not be selfish?
What a strange concept.

You mean not be selfish?
What a strange concept.
I know ... completely un heard of


:p

Vasectomy? Sure. Let's not take the chance that he'll get a woman pregnant. He's not going to make a decent father with a mental age of 7.

But a great brother for his child.

This is eugenics lol.. Hitler did it eugenics and thats part of the reason why everyone hates him (to state the obvious).. I think he should be sterilised though. If he had lots of little kiddies and a whole race of people with mental age of 7 grew up in Britain it'd put a huge strain on the British government and raise taxes! Heck, they might even out breed us..
Perhaps the age restriction laws for sex etc. should be based on mental age rather than physical age?

But a great brother for his child.

Or maybe not... since he is no more 'mature' than a seven year old... so he MIGHT be a terrible brother. He is also shaped like a fully grown man - so all the usual play behaviour associated with a seven-year-old, becomes dengerous in this context.

This is eugenics lol.. Hitler did it eugenics and thats part of the reason why everyone hates him (to state the obvious).. I think he should be sterilised though. If he had lots of little kiddies and a whole race of people with mental age of 7 grew up in Britain it'd put a huge strain on the British government and raise taxes! Heck, they might even out breed us..
Perhaps the age restriction laws for sex etc. should be based on mental age rather than physical age?

Your 'eugenic' concern IS valid... if the condition is genetic, should it be encouraged?

But - more importantly, I would say, are the concerns about if the individual is responsible enough to be a parent... and who gets that responsibility if he is NOT.

I think age laws for sex have to remain limited to physical age... but perhaps they should CONSIDER mental age where it implies a younger mentality than the physical age can support.

e.g. A mental age of seven, in 22 year old body might NOT be a good father.

The reason you can't judge it WHOLELY on mental age, is that a child could be very 'mature'... but, an eight year old girl with a mental-age of 37 shouldn't be having children.

Your 'eugenic' concern IS valid... if the condition is genetic, should it be encouraged?

But - more importantly, I would say, are the concerns about if the individual is responsible enough to be a parent... and who gets that responsibility if he is NOT.

I think age laws for sex have to remain limited to physical age... but perhaps they should CONSIDER mental age where it implies a younger mentality than the physical age can support.

e.g. A mental age of seven, in 22 year old body might NOT be a good father.

The reason you can't judge it WHOLELY on mental age, is that a child could be very 'mature'... but, an eight year old girl with a mental-age of 37 shouldn't be having children.


Though currently in America he DOES fall under an area where it is illegal to have sex with him (so it is not strictly limited by age in this case)
The Vulnerable Adults Act if I remember right (I deal with it more in the elderly then people of his age) but I believe it does cover mental illness and his ability for consensual sex

Though currently in America he DOES fall under an area where it is illegal to have sex with him (so it is not strictly limited by age in this case)
The Vulnerable Adults Act if I remember right (I deal with it more in the elderly then people of his age) but I believe it does cover mental illness and his ability for consensual sex

Which is, I feel, as it should be.

Sex should be regulated by the legal ability to consent, which requires both sufficient age AND sufficent 'competency'.

The guy in question is old enough, but not, I would argue, 'competent' enough. Sterilisation would just be a safeguard.

Which is, I feel, as it should be.

Sex should be regulated by the legal ability to consent, which requires both sufficient age AND sufficent 'competency'.

The guy in question is old enough, but not, I would argue, 'competent' enough. Sterilisation would just be a safeguard.
I agree it should be an option if the guardian (family) makes the decision that it is in the best interest of those under their care (of course with judicial over sight )
That is their responsibility … to protect this individual

<snip>
I think that sexual consent laws are based on mental age in the format that by say, eighteen, the vast majority of 18YOs would be psychologically and emotionally capable of handling the consequences of a sexual relationship. The law can't be unique for every person so we pick the point of 'least harm'.
If it was purely a physical requirement then the legal age would be puberty.

The reason you can't judge it WHOLELY on mental age, is that a child could be very 'mature'... but, an eight year old girl with a mental-age of 37 shouldn't be having children.
Very good point :D
Maybe someone should have both a mental age and a physical age of at least 16 (it's 16 in the UK, not 18).. and that would also help cut down on the ever-growing production of scalls and chavs.. lol

EDIT: Hmm.. Just realised. Setting a law like this doesn't actually do anything at all. There still 14 year old's getting pregnant and they don't get locked up..

I agree it should be an option if the guardian (family) makes the decision that it is in the best interest of those under their care (of course with judicial over sight )
That is their responsibility … to protect this individual

Precisely... they are the legal 'guardians'... it is their job to take care of the charge under their care.

He is not 'competent' to take that responsibility for himself - thus the decision, like every other legal decision, MUST be made by the parents.

I think that sexual consent laws are based on mental age in the format that by say, eighteen, the vast majority of 18YOs would be psychologically and emotionally capable of handling the consequences of a sexual relationship. The law can't be unique for every person so we pick the point of 'least harm'.
If it was purely a physical requirement then the legal age would be puberty.

Agreed. The assumption is that the legal physical age ENSURES a compatible mental age... but this should be codified in law... the assumption alone is insufficient.

The party must be mentally AND physically old enough.

Very good point :D
Maybe someone should have both a mental age and a physical age of at least 16 (it's 16 in the UK, not 18).. and that would also help cut down on the ever-growing production of scalls and chavs.. lol

EDIT: Hmm.. Just realised. Setting a law like this doesn't actually do anything at all. There still 14 year old's getting pregnant and they don't get locked up..

Setting the law provides a framework, nothing more. It provides a set of rules against which decisions can be made. There is no legitimate way to actually stop the pregnant teenager thing... but the law should at least reflect what we are TRYING to do.

Personally, I think everybody should be sterilised at birth, and you should have to prove suitability to have THAT situation reversed.

Precisely... they are the legal 'guardians'... it is their job to take care of the charge under their care.

He is not 'competent' to take that responsibility for himself - thus the decision, like every other legal decision, MUST be made by the parents.
Exactly … I should start a thread (been thinking about this)
Assume that him and another mentally handicapped woman DID have a child

What if the Guardian thought adoption was the best option?
*hears the uproar of you cant do that already*

Agreed. The assumption is that the legal physical age ENSURES a compatible mental age... but this should be codified in law... the assumption alone is insufficient.

The party must be mentally AND physically old enough.
Very true.

Exactly … I should start a thread (been thinking about this)
Assume that him and another mentally handicapped woman DID have a child

What if the Guardian thought adoption was the best option?
*hears the uproar of you cant do that already*

There is a problem... the two would be incapable of making the decision, so the decision MUST be made by whoever represents each and/or both... so you could end with contested rights to the 'child' from two sets of 'grandparents', and/or end up with the 'child' as a ward of the state...

And that is assuming that the 'child' is born 'healthy'...

Too many cans, each with too many worms....

There is a problem... the two would be incapable of making the decision, so the decision MUST be made by whoever represents each and/or both... so you could end with contested rights to the 'child' from two sets of 'grandparents', and/or end up with the 'child' as a ward of the state...

And that is assuming that the 'child' is born 'healthy'...

Too many cans, each with too many worms....
I agree

How many people here have had to care for someone with a disability? It is a serious time commitment. A labour of love often, but a very serious time commitment nonetheless. I knew a woman who had a daughter with a disability and cared for her deeply, but nonetheless would have had her sterilized if she was able to. The reason: the daughter was incapable of caring for any child she might had, which means the responsibility would have fallen to the mother, who was simply not willing to take it on, whether the child was disabled or not.

In this regard the header of the article is totally misleading. The only concerns the parents express in the article are that the son would be unable to care for the child himself (which probably means the parents would end up caring for it). That is the real issue here.