Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

[Feuer Frei!]

Interesting...imagine if you weren't allowed to fornicate! If it was illegal for you to be physically intimate with someone!
Well, read on:

A man with a low IQ has been banned from having sex by a High Court judge who admitted the case raised questions about “civil liberties and personal autonomy”.

...his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a “moderate” learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing.
A psychiatrist involved in the case even tried to prevent the man being given sex education, on the grounds that it would leave him “confused”.
Mr Justice Mostyn said the case was “legally, intellectually and morally” complex as sex is “one of the most basic human functions” and the court must “tread especially carefully” when the state tries to curtail it.

But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have sex with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.



Crikeys!!!


FULL STORY

[Gerald]

So over IQ 48 Its OK! And have a sexual intercourse So

[Skybird]

Ignoring any moral implication I just remind of a simple fact: diseases and defects that are genetically transported, will progressively effect the racial gene pool. So when you medically treat persons with such defects and now they survive until the age when they can multiply where before they would have died and nature would have run natural selection that way, this has, over generations, an effect of the general gene pool.

The number of people with bad eyes who need to wear glasses, is increasing for example. While short sight is not necessarily something that would doom the individual to die in the "wilderness" , it nevertheless illustrates how the presence of a genetic characteristic - bad eyes in this case - results in this characteristic spreading in the gene pool. That with too bad eyes you would die in the wilderness because you can no longer kill your prey or see where your field is, is minor in this example.

But the number of hemophiliac persons is increasing, too. This is because in modern times they have more often children carrying the genetic defect as well, where as in earlier times they simply died before they could have had children.

Just a reminder of biological facts, I do not make any moral judgment or moral comment here. Just want to remind you that nature is totally unsentimental and does not know man's ideas of morals and ethics.

[XabbaRus]

It is a difficult situation. Sex is more than just about the physical act as it does induce strong emotions and feelings.

With an IQ of 48 he probably is lacking the emotional capacity to understand the emotions and appropriateness. However how can you ban someone from having sex?

Quite rightly he probably would be a danger to himself and others in terms of not understanding the need for safe sex. It seems he was in a relationship but I can also understand why they would worry that he could be taken advantage of.

A complicated situation indeed and I would need to have more information to make a true judgement.

[Matador.es]

Originally Posted by Wiki

Canada
Main article: Compulsory sterilization in Canada
Although less well-known[says who?] than other eugenic sterilization programs, two Canadian provinces (Alberta and British Columbia) performed compulsory sterilization programs with eugenic aims. Canadian compulsory sterilization operated via the same overall mechanisms of institutionalization, judgement, and surgery as the American system[why?]. One notable difference is in the treatment of non-insane criminals. Canadian legislation never allowed for punitive sterilization of inmates.

In holland a debate has rissen for sterilisation of pedosexuals.

Its not the same, but it allready happens today. I think Canada is most know. Although i thought they stoped doing so in the 80's

the racial gene pool

So 1930s again, and it didn't even say if Alan was a muslim.

I do not make any moral judgment or moral comment here

Too late to try and cover your arse when you have already repeatedly written about how you want whole sections of society to be banned from breeding.

[FIREWALL]

Court of Protection !!! Held behind closed doors ?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

...his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a “moderate” learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing.

So sad the court would do such a thing to Dowly...

[Armistead]

Since when did having a low IQ have anything to do with safe sex. Millions with high IQ's get STD's. Not sure how you could stop someone unless you put a chasity belt on them or locked them away.

Thank God my IQ is 50, so hopefully I'm safe.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

So sad the court would do such a thing to Dowly...

Shall i edit the title?

[Penguin]

Of course does the guy needs to be protected from being taken advantage of. The question is how? In terms of safer sex, it is also the responsibility of his partner.
But retards do sometimes have a sex drive which can bring themselves or others in danger, for this case, it is for example allowed here to give them something to "come down". If the sex is consensual, then it is legal here and no court may say otherwise.
I agree, that we need more infos about this case to make a judgement call, from the information given, I can only say that the only reasonable decision was that the man is allowed to have sex ed.

If I have a car crash when I drive home next hour and my brain gets damaged, those suckers should try to stop me having sex with my Frau!

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ignoring any moral implication I just remind of a simple fact: diseases and defects that are genetically transported, will progressively effect the racial gene pool. So when you medically treat persons with such defects and now they survive until the age when they can multiply where before they would have died and nature would have run natural selection that way, this has, over generations, an effect of the general gene pool.

The number of people with bad eyes who need to wear glasses, is increasing for example. While short sight is not necessarily something that would doom the individual to die in the "wilderness" , it nevertheless illustrates how the presence of a genetic characteristic - bad eyes in this case - results in this characteristic spreading in the gene pool. That with too bad eyes you would die in the wilderness because you can no longer kill your prey or see where your field is, is minor in this example.

But the number of hemophiliac persons is increasing, too. This is because in modern times they have more often children carrying the genetic defect as well, where as in earlier times they simply died before they could have had children.

Just a reminder of biological facts, I do not make any moral judgment or moral comment here. Just want to remind you that nature is totally unsentimental and does not know man's ideas of morals and ethics.

You may not wanted to imply any morale here, but you did.
The talk about the racial gene pool sounds like promoting eugenetics to me. Mankind has evolved from gatherer and hunter society, and even then, the old, weak or dumb were fed (if possible). If you couldn't hunt, then a paerson may contribute to the tribe in other ways.

Bad eyesight has more to do with the lifestyle we have today than with genetics.

The article also states that the guy is together with another man, so no chance of procreation here - the holy gene pool is safe.

If intelligence was solely a matter of genetics, ****ing mankind would have been gone for long.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ultimately thihs is stupid. The court orders him not to have sex. With a low IQ and moderate mental disability, can he even understand the order properly?

However, on moral grounds, the reality is that any issue like this is a moral issue. Justice is legal moralism. The statement "Murder is wrong" is a moral stance. Every assault, rape, robbery, and speeding ticket case is based on societal morals.

To try and say that there is no moral judgement being made in any discussion regarding a court case is incorrect.

Now - on to the merits. Between the mental disability and measured IQ, the order not only protects the man from his own inability to practice reasonably safe intercourse, but it also those who otherwise could be his future partners. Should he unwittingly catch something, he lacks the mental ability to protect future partners. This order not only protects him, but insures that he will not - intentionally or unintentionally, victimize others. This order is, in essence, similiar to an order which remands a person to oversight due to mental health issues. The mechanics are different, but the purpose is the same - to protect them and society.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I had to think about this for a little bit before forming an opinion. I can see the reasoning behind the court's order and some views in support of it. I can certainly understand the argument about it being beneficial to people he might have interactions with.

However, I'm resigned to my usual Lockean stance on this one. Anyone who has intercourse with this man is doing so out of their own free will and is therefore accepting the consequences. Unless he becomes a rapist or something, the court has no place restricting his rights on the grounds that it is necessary to protect others, for any reason.

Likewise, the court has no compelling moral reason for restricting this man's rights for his own benefit. Granted, he is mentally deficient and may be more prone than most to making unsound decisions, but that is irrelevant. Either this man has been ruled mentally sound enough to be autonomous and should enjoy as little "protection" from the state as he does in the rest of his life, or he has not and is therefore the ward of someone else, in which case he must abide by the decisions of his caretaker(s) and they must accept the consequences of his actions.

This particular issue is no place to draw a moral line when it comes to considering what people may and may not be allowed to do. It is a question of civil liberties because the very act of arbitrarily deciding what is and is not permissible without respect to neutral and negative rights is contrary by nature.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penguin

You may not wanted to imply any morale here, but you did.
The talk about the racial gene pool sounds like promoting eugenetics to me. Mankind has evolved from gatherer and hunter society, and even then, the old, weak or dumb were fed (if possible). If you couldn't hunt, then a paerson may contribute to the tribe in other ways.

First, I excluded any moral perspective in my posting already in my very first four words by which I opened my posting. If you know better what I did, then I cannot help it.

Second, I wanted to draw attention to a medical conseqeunce of modern medical treatement, and that is that by doing so we reduce the evolutionary mechnaism of survival of the fittest. We indeed weaken our gene pool that way, whether we like to realise that or not is not the issue here: we nevertheless do. That is a problem that compares to the growing life expectancy due to modern mdeical treatement: it increases costs of the medical system, and sees eiother health system collapsing, or trewatement that is efféctive more and more only affordable for the rich, while the poor do not get it. Talking of 2- or 3-class medicine here. Also, with the share of old population becoming bigger and the share of payiong young population becoming smaller, there are financial problems to which so far nobody has an answer.

All these trhings are factual problems that nobody adresses and noboy can solve so far. Many diseases that are genetically transferred from generation to generation, withion families, thus are spreading, that is a fact. As a race, the homo sapiens in general that is, we become weaker and sicker. That has nothing to do with eugenics or rtace theory. It must be allowed to point out an implication that has a controversial reputation without getting accused of being a racist or in defense of eugenics. Again, I made that clear from all beginning on that I ignored the moral perspective on it all.

And on the old being treated in earlier times. The Iuit, when wandering around in the arctic, used to put their old and weak ones inside an iglo they built once the old became too heavy a burden for the tribe/family to care for, the iglu was sealede from the outside and could not be opened from the inside, and that way they left their oldest members behind. Several indian tribes in North America saw the old ones staying behind when they thoight theior time has come, especally in times when their was pressure on the tribe due to low food stocks or extremew cold winters. In South America, some Indian tribes know the old ones moving out on one last hunt that was meant to mark the end of their wandering on Earth, called the ghost hunt. Other communities sacrificed the weak or old ones to their deities. Both ways are known amongst African tribes as well.

And then I recommend the chapter on the genocide in Ruanda, in the book "Collapse" by Jarred Diamond. There he shows a demographic analysis of the population age structure, and shows that there was a huge rivalry betweern the poseessing old generations qwho could live off their possessions,w hile the young oines had no place and ressources left for themselves to found families, and that this inner tension formed an inner dynamic of highly destructive energy that decisively contributed to the outbreak of the killing.

And all all continents, there were hige movements by people caused by ori8ginal living places becoming too crowded to support the survival of all, or expoeditonary colon ists being sent out in to the unknown to seek relief frpom demographic pressure at home. In these endavours, again the weak and the old ones were the most disadvantaged and were the ones whose interest were sacrificed first.

So, wars also were a way by which demographic pressure was solved.

Your implication of the "edle Wilde" who does not do brutal things to the old and cared for them so much better than we do, is a bit one-sided, I would say. From all eras and continets you can find many examples illustrating the opposite. And when I look at the conditions in some of our contemporary "Pflegeheime", then I remember many examples from the media (and my own experience when I did my practicals at hospitals) that have taught me that my life may become of a kind that I may want to conclude that the price for living any longer may become too high and that it is better to make a certain decision by myself instead of leaving it to fate and random chance alone.

Thinbking about my intial posting with a little bit more of sober mind and a little bit less of sentimentality, is of the essence. The implications I point at, are real, they are problematic, and so far they are unsolved.

[Buddahaid]

What I want to know is who are his partners? It all sounds like there's a line of lonely women formed up outside his house, waiting their turn with the stud-muffin. This is wierd.