[Cody Dawg]

Read here.

This woman killed her baby. According to other reports (aside from the one above), when the baby would not stop crying she "punched the baby then threw him."

Now he is dead.

Her mother said, "I tried to tell people that she could not take care of a baby, but they wouldn't listen to me and they never did anything about it. She is mentally handicapped."

Over and over again, it is being mentioned that she had her 3-year old daughter taken away because she could not take care of her because she is borderline mentally retarded, then she had another baby and she has killed him and one of the issues being raised repeatedly is that she is mentally deficient.

Apparently, the mother and others are saying that the reason that the baby is dead is because the woman was mentally deficient and could not take care of the baby sufficiently and the state would/could not step in and help and therefore, the state and authorities are also at fault for the baby being dead.

What do any of you think of this?

I think the mother of the woman who did this is negligent and partially responsible also. If she knew that her daughter was incapable of caring for a baby, why didn't she take the baby herself? Heck, if my neighbor was having problems and she had a baby and she was struggling I would ask her to let me help her, to give me the baby to take care of, until she could do it herself.

I am sick to my stomach when I read things like this -- or like the lady that cut the arms off of her infant baby girl with a kitchen knife (last week.)

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I think the mother of the woman who did this is negligent and partially responsible also. If she knew that her daughter was incapable of caring for a baby, why didn't she take the baby herself?

You can not just take care of someone else's baby. That would be kidnapping. The mother "tried to tell people". I assume that includes officials of the youth office. If they didn't listen there's not much the mother could have done against the will of the mother.

[willed]

Touchy topic - go too far and you're branded a Nazi for not allowing the stupid to pro-create, but OTOH you get incidents like this proving its not always a good idea. Even though there's no easy right and wrong I'm sure we'll get posts which assume that there is

[roberto blanco]

stupid <unt

[effgee]

Assuming for a moment that the mother of the accused did indeed report her suspicions to the proper authorities (the article makes no mention of that, and not everybody has the time to take in a kid - job, etc.) and taking into consideration the fact that the DCF had already removed one child from the accused's custody, one may be inclined to question the IQ of the DCF official who sent this:

"... (DCF) warned mother that any further problems/accidents would result in the child being removed. ..."

And then, after another incident occurs, they're actually surprised that the mother won't call 911? Well, hello there - how dumb can you possibly be? Why wasn't she told that the child will be taken away unless she'll go see a counselor within a certain timeframe and that, after she completed those sessions, she'll be checked upon frequently?

While the article doesn't provide nearly enough information about the background of the story ...

• Was the accused married?
• Where was the kid's father?
• Why did she want to have another child?
• If she didn't want another child - did she have access to/use contraceptives?
• Since her first child had been removed, did the DCF force her to undergo counseling back then?
• If so, why was that unsuccessful?

... it seems fairly obvious that the DCF pooped out in every aspect imaginable.

All under the assumption that the accused really does suffer from a rather serious mental disability - if she doesn't, throw her sorry ass in jail and be done with it.

[wdlove]

A very sad situation. It is an area that is very hard to deal with. Being a free country has its limitations.

[Cody Dawg]

Yes, isn't it a tough call?

I mean, I really do NOT want the government interfering with our bodies and procreation.

But, this is really horrible.

I just wanted to know what all of you thought.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Read here.

This woman killed her baby. According to other reports (aside from the one above), when the baby would not stop crying she "punched the baby then threw him."

Now he is dead.

Her mother said, "I tried to tell people that she could not take care of a baby, but they wouldn't listen to me and they never did anything about it. She is mentally handicapped."

Over and over again, it is being mentioned that she had her 3-year old daughter taken away because she could not take care of her because she is borderline mentally retarded, then she had another baby and she has killed him and one of the issues being raised repeatedly is that she is mentally deficient.

Apparently, the mother and others are saying that the reason that the baby is dead is because the woman was mentally deficient and could not take care of the baby sufficiently and the state would/could not step in and help and therefore, the state and authorities are also at fault for the baby being dead.

What do any of you think of this?

I think the mother of the woman who did this is negligent and partially responsible also. If she knew that her daughter was incapable of caring for a baby, why didn't she take the baby herself? Heck, if my neighbor was having problems and she had a baby and she was struggling I would ask her to let me help her, to give me the baby to take care of, until she could do it herself.

I am sick to my stomach when I read things like this -- or like the lady that cut the arms off of her infant baby girl with a kitchen knife (last week.)

If someone is mentally ill (just do some reading on borderline syndrom), they should be monitored closely, especially if they have children. Their relatives are pretty much helpless (depending on how bad the borderline syndrom is in her case), because it requires professional care.

Mental sickness implies not guilty because of reasons of insanity and the woman needs to be in a mental hospital.

[aberdeenwriter]

Ruling of the aberdeenwriter court:

The woman has proven herself incapable of assuming the rights and responsibilities of motherhood in a manner such that she will AT LEAST not pose a risk to those children.

It is in the best interests of society and any of her future children that she be rendered permanently infertile.

Were her mental incapacities only temporary, I would impose a temporary remedy such as medical infertility through use of involuntary longer term contraception. (Norplant)

I have heard of cases where citizens, aware of potential future problems regarding friends or family, unsuccessfully tried to alert the appropriate authorities to the dangers.

Sometimes the authorities' hands are tied by the limits of the law. Other times because of heavy case loads.

We can't say for sure whether the mother of the killer can be faulted for failing to take her daughter's child.

Furthermore, her statement that she tried to tell people of the daughter's inability to adequately mother absolves her from legal liability. She will have to live with her own thoughts of whether she could have done more to prevent this tragedy.

[yukon]

"rendered permanently infertile", now that's scary. I haven't read the article, just the posts here, but it sounds to me that she indeed may be mentally handicapped. But beyond that euphemism, punching, throwing, and killing a baby, she sounds like she is a danger to herself and others. I'm not sure if she can live alone or if her mother takes care of her, but either way her guardian (herself or her mother) is unable to keep control, perhaps a mental institution would be best.

[storer]

What does this thread have to do with the title?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by storer:
What does this thread have to do with the title?

The act of sex leads to mentally deficient people. (The killer's mom had sex and bore a mentally deficient daughter.)

That mentally deficient people have sex. (The mentally deficient
daughter had sex and bore at least two children. One was removed from her custody. Another one, she killed.)

Mentally deficient people who have sex and produce children can harm society and/or the children they produce.

As members of society we have an interest in protecting children from those who are likely to harm them.

A question exists (AFAIK) as to whether mentally deficient people should be allowed to have sex and/or produce children.

No one has yet brought up any other possible topics that the thread title might suggest.

Why do you ask? What do you have in mind?

[storer]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Why do you ask? What do you have in mind?

That is sort of what I had in mind... i thought that was just a bit too obvious for MacNN.

[effgee]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Ruling of the aberdeenwriter court: ... It is in the best interests of society and any of her future children that she be rendered permanently infertile. ...

Splendid idea! With a bit of luck some of the old laws might still be in effect - aaah, the golden twenties/thirties - those were the times! But fret not - since Buck vs. Bell has never been overruled there's always a good chance that the glorious tradition of forced sterilization can be picked up and continued at any time.

Who needs the feebleminded - of all people - to procreate anyway? After all, society should be protected from "probable potential parent(s) of socially inadequate offspring" (recognize the quote - kinda gives you that warm, fuzzy and nostalgic feeling, doesn't it?)

Herrenrasse*, here we come ... and where the fsck is Josef when you need him?





* - This time, we're not going to model our law after yours, and there'll be no honorary degrees, either.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by effgee:
Splendid idea! With a bit of luck some of the old laws might still be in effect - aaah, the golden twenties/thirties - those were the times! But fret not - since Buck vs. Bell has never been overruled there's always a good chance that the glorious tradition of forced sterilization can be picked up and continued at any time.

Who needs the feebleminded - of all people - to procreate anyway? After all, society should be protected from "probable potential parent(s) of socially inadequate offspring" (recognize the quote - kinda gives you that warm, fuzzy and nostalgic feeling, doesn't it?)

Herrenrasse*, here we come ... and where the fsck is Josef when you need him?




* - This time, we're not going to model our law after yours, and there'll be no honorary degrees, either.

Did you notice before your Fuzzy-leap to the conclusion where you seem to have landed, that I was ruling ONLY on this particular case?

The concept of protection of individual liberties is not the purview of this court. It is the dispensation of justice in the matter of the mother who killed her child and, previously, had another removed by the authorities.

However, if you wish me to give an opinion on the matter of whether the mentally deficient should have the same assumed protections as those not perceived as mentally deficient, I will do so.

By virtue of their diminished capability to perform the parental functions necessary to assure an upbringing that will not place the child at a disadvantage or at risk to themselves or society, I will state there are certain individuals who should not be allowed to procreate.

Their mental function can not grasp the duties and responsibilities involved in parenting and yet, their biological functions permit their entering into sexual unions.

This is likened to the old adage of, one part of the body writing checks that another part of the body is unable to cover.

Some of these individulas are so mentally deficient that their daily sustenance is only made possible by the assistance of caretakers. These individuals are assumed to be effectively chaperoned or supervised so that if sexual union is even allowed to take place that necessary precautions will be taken.

Those who require no caretakers for their day to day living represent a different category of concern.

Many of these individuals recieve government financial assistance as their sole subsistence. Others supplement that government stipend with limited part-time employment.

In that they have mobility and a degree of autonomy and self determinism, they reasonably can be expected to form relationships of affection through their interactions with co-workers and friends. These relationships could presumably lead to sexual interactions.

Before issuing a ruling on this matter I would want medical data, sociologic study results and etc. to help guide me. However, in lieu of said information I will make some uninformed assumptions.

One of those is that the parents of low-functioning individuals will have sought guidance from child welfare and public school professionals on what special educational and guidance needs these children will need to become self sufficient.

Another assumption is that with a fully functional set of reproductive equipment but a low functioning guidance system and an otherwise normal libido the possibility of pregnancy is a real possibility.

When we see normally functioning citizens commonly fail to use contraception appropriate to the widely publicized risk of Sexually Transmitted Disease and possible pregnancy (in light of the AIDS problem and the number of unwanted pregnancy statistics) it is assumed that the low-functioning citizens may need extra education in the importance of condom usage. And I would not be surprised if statistics showed low functioning cases of STD's and pregancy to be lower, per capita, than that of the general population.

However, as we note with this case of the low functioning mother who killed her child, this woman has an In 'n Out urge that will not, nor should it, be denied.

With the desire to do as little as possible to infringe on individual rights, but to protect society from the heartbreak of stories such as this, as well as to protect the children from parents who are obviously ill equipped to handle the awesome duties of parenting and not to be ignored, the added drain on taxpayers of caring for the children of those sexually active parents who are unable to care for the children they might spawn, it is the opinion of this court that involuntary temporary long term contraception be made part of each low functioning woman's terms of compensation.

Every six months the individual will have to present herself to a medical facility to get the Norplant device renewed in order to continue to receive financial benefits.

In this way the protections of the individual rights will be respected, the danger to unborn children will be negated and the taxpayer will incur no extra expense of caring for the children of these low functioning women.

aberdeenwriter court is adjourned...for now.

[Cody Dawg]

"aberdeenwriter court."



I don't know about sterilizing people, but definitely take their kids away from them if they can't handle the rigors of raising children.

Last night our baby, who is teething, was a screaming and yelling monster. Just about the same age as the baby that was killed. It is very stressful when a baby cries nonstop no matter what you do. About 2 hours of sleep last night -- I'm bleeping tired. Today he is happy as can be and is crawling around and in a great mood.

For someone who is not an emotionally balanced and patient person, a baby crying nonstop could have disastrous results...as evidenced by the fact that this woman threw her baby and killed him.

Social services/government SHOULD have been more on top of this. The problem is that we hear how social services routinely failed to monitor situations like this over and over again. A LOT of the cases seem to be here in Florida, also.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
"aberdeenwriter court."



I don't know about sterilizing people, but definitely take their kids away from them if they can't handle the rigors of raising children.

Last night our baby, who is teething, was a screaming and yelling monster. Just about the same age as the baby that was killed. It is very stressful when a baby cries nonstop no matter what you do. About 2 hours of sleep last night -- I'm bleeping tired. Today he is happy as can be and is crawling around and in a great mood.

For someone who is not an emotionally balanced and patient person, a baby crying nonstop could have disastrous results...as evidenced by the fact that this woman threw her baby and killed him.

Social services/government SHOULD have been more on top of this. The problem is that we hear how social services routinely failed to monitor situations like this over and over again. A LOT of the cases seem to be here in Florida, also.

Although I know any rationally thinking and any feeling person can have an opinion on either side of this issue, I wonder if the response to the issue of female sterilization might yield litmus test-like results. I would guess more women might be fundamentally, instinctually repulsed by the idea of sterilization, even for a woman who has killed her child.

The equivalent instinctual revulsive response for guys might be experienced when discussing the neutering of their male dog.

I think we imagine the procedure being done to ourselves and respond emotionally as well as from our hard-wired instincts which have survived very nicely despite any other evolutionary changes.

Funny, that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The act of sex leads to mentally deficient people. (The killer's mom had sex and bore a mentally deficient daughter.)

That mentally deficient people have sex. (The mentally deficient
daughter had sex and bore at least two children. One was removed from her custody. Another one, she killed.)

Mentally deficient people who have sex and produce children can harm society and/or the children they produce.

As members of society we have an interest in protecting children from those who are likely to harm them.

A question exists (AFAIK) as to whether mentally deficient people should be allowed to have sex and/or produce children.

No one has yet brought up any other possible topics that the thread title might suggest.

Why do you ask? What do you have in mind?

Do you use the term mentally deficient for mentally challenged or mentally ill or do you mix both? Mentally ill people are usually not mentally deficient (in the sense that they are handicapped because of a lack of intelligence), you can't mix the two.

The question of having sex and having children are separate issues. I don't see any reason why mentally handicapped people shouldn't have sex (willingly, of course).

I think your proposition is in direct conflict with your Constitution, making people (who `shouldn't' reproduce) infertile was done before (as mentioned by others) and the arising issues have been mentioned already.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Do you use the term mentally deficient for mentally challenged or mentally ill or do you mix both? Mentally ill people are usually not mentally deficient (in the sense that they are handicapped because of a lack of intelligence), you can't mix the two.

The question of having sex and having children are separate issues. I don't see any reason why mentally handicapped people shouldn't have sex (willingly, of course).

I think your proposition is in direct conflict with your Constitution, making people (who `shouldn't' reproduce) infertile was done before (as mentioned by others) and the arising issues have been mentioned already.

There are mentally ill people who should not be denied the right to act as they please, within the law. There are mentally challenged individuals who have sufficient judgment to have the rights of any other American.

Of course there are those, from both categories, for who this is not the case.

For the sake of this argument the term was used, clumsily, to refer to the four subset groups. Greater precision was employed in my response to effgee.

I agree with your statement re: the right of the mentally handicapped to engage in consensual sex, although I have not researched whether there is any difference between mental competence sufficient to make a decision on sexual relations and other activities/privileges which are granted only with legally defined mental competence (or if any such activities/privileges actually exist).

In the case of the mother who killed her child, I believe her ability to ever gain a level of mental function sufficient to assure the safety and proper care of any future she might produce, has been proven. In this instance I believe permanent sterilization is in the best interests of the state and any future children she might bear.

Please refer to my posted response to effgee and if there are any pusuant questions or comments I will gladly entertain them here.

[effgee]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Did you notice before your Fuzzy-leap to ...

LAWL.

Your honor needs to loosen his bow tie a little before it starts cutting off the oxygen supply to his brain.

"A deliberate exaggeration which adopts a mode of speech the meaning of which is contrary to the literal sense of the words". I know that some of the "value-based" folks around here are a bit slow in the head when it comes to other people poking fun at how immensely serious they like to take themselves - but you're usually not one of them. So loosen up, grab a dictionary and check under the letter "i" (pretty much towards the end) and you'll find what I'm referring to.

Court's adjourned.

[Cody Dawg]

effgee:

What is your signature?

[rozwado1]

Trogdor sentences her to Inevitable Burnination!!!

[effgee]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
effgee: What is your signature?

you first - what does it look like?

[Millennium]

It's times like this that some form of parental licensing becomes awfully tempting. Unfortunately, there is still no way of fairly predicting "fitness" (or even defining it, for that matter), and even if there were, the power would still be far, far too easy to abuse.

Still, at times like this one has to wonder: is there truly no better way than what there is now? A way which respects freedom, life, and dignity? I'm not sure there is, save the nothing that we have now.

[DeathToWindows]

I'm with Millenium on this one... we have nowhere near enough data to be able to predict what the kids will be like or to really predict the "fitness" of an adult to become a parent. We can only make educated guesses.

But parental licensing, IMHO, will happen... as a result of population control and manipulation of individuals for overall social calm... but not until psychology and genetics understand far more about the human systems

[Cody Dawg]

The best we can do is to start in the schools with sex education and child rearing classes.

If kids are educated, birth control becomes readily available and is free or affordable, then hopefully these situations will become less frequent.

I think that all high schoolers should be required to pass sex education and parenting classes as a requirement of graduation and that all of them should be required to volunteer at a child care or day care center for 6 hours as part of their high school education.

Once they experience diaper changing, screaming babies, and all of the stresses of raising babies and children, once they experience all of the unpleasantries of child care they will be much more inclined to use birth control and take sex more seriously.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The best we can do is to start in the schools with sex education and child rearing classes...

[Superchicken]

Ideal situation... people need licences to have babies. Have a baby without a licence, enormous fines, and you don't get to keep it. We could have homes created with professional parents who would do something other than let TV raise em... then again you'd run into other problems. Perhaps we should have shoot stupid people more often...