Carrie Buck is alive and well

A woman with learning difficulties could be forcibly sterilised after she gives birth this week to stop her becoming pregnant again.

Not come all that far since 1927, have we?

Can\’t have the feeble minded going around having children now, can we?

Oh, they can have sex alright:

Critics argue that forcible sterilisation is too radical a procedure to be conducted without consent while other options such as a long-term contraceptive solution should be considered.

To deprive someone of sex would be cruel, to make sure they don\’t pollute the genetic pool of the nation is righteous:

The court can also order “terminations of pregnancy” for women who lack capacity to consent,

Yup, right up to forced abortions.

Fuck me, when did we let the gene fascists into the system?

14 thoughts on “Carrie Buck is alive and well”

  1. So Tim, what do you think we should do with the resulting offspring?

    Will you adopt them?

    And, how many children will be ok with you over the years (5?10?15?20?), and at what point will you consider the permanent pregnancy a problem for the women herself?

    This is a tough one, and the old ‘Nazi’ trump no longer is a magic solution, please bring more useful reasoning than just a complaint about other peoples rotten morals.

  2. “when did we let the gene fascists into the system?”

    Impossible to tell when they actually arrived, but you left the door open and unlocked in 1947.

  3. Hexe, suggests: “please bring more useful reasoning ”

    I think first, you need to bring something yourself.

    Specifically, please bring this board your proposal for protecting your offspring against a widening definition of “feeble-minded”.

    Or, for that matter, protecting yourself.

    That is not a snark. It’s a serious question that the UK must now deal with. You can propose your answer, if you like. 1-2-3 go.

  4. Specifically, please bring this board your proposal for protecting your offspring against a widening definition of “feeble-minded”.

    How about “is already required, under other, pre-existing laws, to live permanently in institutional care”? Pretty basic, simple, and absolutely nothing new.

    Julia’s linked chap Alan is definitely in that category. It’s not clear from the reporting whether the woman in the Telegraph piece is, or whether she lives in the community, but given the context of the cases that the Court of Protection normally rules on, then I’d be surprised if not.

  5. What is the future of this project?

    Kids: Children’s home as no-one wants to adopt such children. (see below)

    Unsterilised patient: serial pregnancies OR imprisonment.

    Long-term future: 50% of her children will be female and then there are 2 scenarios:

    1) Those women are also mentally ill and continue to produce babies unwittingly as we are not ‘nazis’ and so the problem multiplies(literally)

    2) Mentally ill women end up being used as broodmares to produce enough children to help raise the adoption quota as her children are healthy (be careful here, this is also nazi territory, and this time,the real thing, NewLebensborn, NuLabourborn, what is the difference…!).

    Either way, we went from one women we sterilised to protect her from serial pregnancies to (say) 10 women in the next generation that go on to produce more of the same.

    For the sick women we’re speaking of, chances are she doesn’t even grasp she is carrying a baby and not a terrifying tumor that will kill her.

    As to your children and how to protect them — if your daughter was as ill as the women we’re speaking off, I sincerely hope that you’d have the compassion and balls to be a ‘nazi’.

  6. Kids: Children’s home as no-one wants to adopt such children. (see below)

    This is the only bit where your analysis fails. All would-be adopters want babies; it’s kids aged 5+ who’re hard to place. Sproglet-in-question will be placed with an ultra-vetted, non-smoking, respectable-in-every-way couple who’ve been queuing for years, and will be delighted to have said sproglet.

  7. Just noticed this point on Tim’s OP:
    Yup, right up to forced abortions.

    Erm, nup. Concept here is that the CoP has power of attorney – ie it’s in loco parentis.

    So in the same way that the parents of a pregnant 12-year-old can consent to her having an abortion if she’d be at risk of serious mental and physical damage otherwise, even if she doesn’t like the idea, so can the CoP. But it’s exactly that principle – not eugenics evilness.

  8. John b, do you mean to say that parents can force minor children to have an abortion against their will in Britain. What do you do if they really don’t want to? Drag them screaming to the hospital and tie them the bed. That would good for their mental health.

  9. John B is just scrabbling desperately to reinforce his internal world view (that the state can do no wrong when run by those with the best interests of society) with this utter horror.

  10. johnb: I doubt that any social services are mad enough to have children that are this seriously sick and incapable adopted — it creates more problems than it solves.

    However, what the real problem is that people feel there is no proper accountable oversight over the people who have the job to make those hard decisions.

    And that translates directly into a curiously heroic moral cowardice that currently causes dying people being starved to death, or, as we see in this case, mentally ill women getting pregnant.

    Btw, if someone cannot make a decision about contraceptives, how do they decide about sex partners and at what point does sex with a mentally incapable person become rape(also compare: drunk ladies getting laid by ‘opportunists’)

    There is some good fishin’in that can’o’worms!

  11. Bill: what I mean is, and I probably phrased this badly, that if a minor child is pregnant and stands a good chance of dying if she goes through with the pregnancy, then her parents can consent to an abortion on her behalf. Yes, that will probably do terrible things for her mental health, but at least she won’t die.

    That’s also how it works for women under CoP. They’re less inherently likely to die giving birth than someone who’s 12 – but if, like some of my adult female friends (who, as adults responsible for their own lives, have chosen various different ways of dealing with the situation) she has a medical condition that is likely to make her die if they carry a baby to term, at that point the CoP can consent to an abortion on her behalf. That is all.

    Hexe: I don’t see where you’re coming from. While there is obviously some heritability to genetic conditions, out of the people I know (=many) who’ve adopted kids, “born of a mum who was mentally incapacitated and adopted at birth” would be preferable to “abused for five years and finally taken away once everyone realised there was no way they could stay with their natural parents”. Which, in a society where abortion is more-or-less freely available, is the choice facing prospective adoptive parents.

  12. Btw, if someone cannot make a decision about contraceptives, how do they decide about sex partners and at what point does sex with a mentally incapable person become rape(also compare: drunk ladies getting laid by ‘opportunists’)

    In England & Wales, this is easy. The Sexual Offences Act 2003, which is an excellent piece of legislation and a model for how every country/state’s sexual offences legislation should be (seriously – aside from whether jail or castration is the most appropriate punishment, I’d defy even JuliaM to find something in there to disagree with) , makes the situation in question very clear.

    Regarding the woman in the original story, either her partner is also mentally impaired (so not guilty on 30.1.d), or he isn’t, in which case he’s in jail in a court case that hasn’t been linked to this one because of the whole anonymity thing. And just in case you were wondering, if he’s a nurse/care worker/etc, the punishment is doubled for being a doubly unspeakable bastard.

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Worstall tries to make this about genetics, but there is no evidence of it. The article does not make it clear why this woman is being threatened with sterilisation, but there is not even a hint that genetics plays any role.

    It looks like normal welfare to me. And given the people I know who have children with serious intellectual impairment, and hence grandchildren they have to look after, I see nothing wrong with this at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *