The scary part is not the forced abortion, it's who is this that keeps sleeping with somebody with Schrizophrenia, Bipolar disorder and Mania type II? How do you even get a person like this to stay calm during sex? Folks, whoever this is needs to go to jail or explain how that happened not once or twice, but 3 times...we wouldnt be arguing about this situation if it wasnt for this bastard

Actually, the government under no circumstances is forcing an abortion. There is a dispute, but if an abortion were to occur, it wouldn't be the government doing it, it would be done at the behest of her parents, who the courts have appointed as her legal guardians.

The question isn't whether a government has the right to force an abortion and it never has been. The question is, do legal guardians have the right to force an abortion, especially when they are the ones who will be taking care of the child.

That, I do not know. But this isn't about government and abortion.

To Kodiakkid : You're right. It is a slippery slope and I don't know what the answer is. I can only say that I was raised by a mentally ill mother, who should have never had children. Because of her illness, she declared open - warfare on her children. Sadly, she stayed just enough under the radar to avoid the authorities. She didn't think she was ill, but our childhood was a nightmare. She is the number one reason why I think people should be psychologically tested before they bring children into the world. Just because you CAN have a baby, doesn't mean you should

Where is the father???

Is the / are the father(s) supporting these children??? The article says nothing about him/them. If she insists on having sex, then she needs to be put on birth control or have a procedure. Then the next problem (if it isn't already) is a sexually transmitted disease. Where does it end? If she's not a practicing Catholic, then birth control and a condom shouldn't be a problem.

I agree with docholiday--something is very wrong with this picture. If this woman is as seriously mentally ill as we are told. She is in no way compentent to make the decision to have sex. I think this pregancy is the result of rape of a imparied person, and that someone should be looking at that. I also think that the parents are unfit guardians as they have done nothing to prevent the pregancy in the first place, (if she's on that many meds it's too dang easy to add a birth control pill to the mix) The fact that they want her strelized is proof to me that they will not be taking care of her in a way that will stop her from being further victimized by whoever.

Women with these types of mental illnesses can be coerced quite easily into having sex, they are easy victims and targets, I don't see anyone stepping up and addressing this. No one seems to have this woman's best interest in mind.

There is something called the patients bill of rights passed by Congress. One of them is patients have the right to refuse third-party interference in their medical care, and to be confident that their actions in seeking or declining medical care will not result in third-party-imposed penalties for patients or physicians.

To lin-1175248: I assume you are aware that if you had things your way you would not exist. If your mother acted as you believed she should have and either abstained from motherhood or aborted all her children there would be no you.

Seeing that you are able to coherently read and respond to a serious article on the internet, I believe that you have turned out alright. Life is precious and should be encouraged. I agree with those who argue to permit the government to have a hand in this decision (It may be the "choice" of the parents to terminate, but it is sanctioned under the law).

Further you state women should be psychologically evaluated before having children. As a Liberal, as I would bet my life savings on that you are, do you see the cognizant dissonance in having the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your body?

Finally towards your argument, if we let a bunch of Dr. Mengeles decide who may and may not have children because of mental illness, who decides where the threshold is? It does not take a giant leap of thinking this opens a dangerous door to further restrictions. Men were put to death at the Nuremberg trials for making similar life and death decisions.

Considering everything-I think it would be best to terminate the pregnancy and then sterilize this poor woman. There are TOO MANY "if-ands or buts" to this problem.

And yes-where is the "sperm donor" of these children?

BarbaraB -- Chances are, this woman has sex nilly-willy and does not know who the father(s) of her children is/are. I feel very sorry for her parents who have the burden of taking care of this crazy woman as well as her children and can fully understand their request for an abortion and sterilization. They may need the help of a professional (shrink) to get the daughter to submit to these procedures; and if not an abortion, at least sterilization. Another point, even with sterilization, if this woman continues to have unprotected sex, she'll probably end up with some kind of sexually transmitted disease.

You have to feel for her parents in this mess. They are the ones who are shouldering all the responsibility; their wishes ought to be carried out, if this is what they wanted and they are authorized to make all medical decisions for her because she incapable. I think I would know what I would want if she were my daughter. Now, they face the possibility of another child who could be brain damaged from the anti-psychotic meds she must take along with the child they already are raising for her, AND the adult daughter. Overwhelmed isn't the word for it.

Unless the woman's father is the father of the child and they want it aborted so no one finds out.

Slippery slope? How about the obvious fact that the mentally-ill woman will be unable to function as a mother. She is irresponsible, though because she is a woman, she draws sympathy.

Why doesn't the father have a say? Offer him the option of adoption and full custody with zero visitation rights for the unfit mother. Otherwise, give him a say in the abortion.

I feel very sad for this woman. Many here are acting like this woman chooses to be mentally ill. She must be in so much pain in this awful situation.

I'm staunchly pro-choice but I do not believe anyone has the right to force a woman to have an abortion, regardless of her mental impairment and regardless of guardianship status.

@Silvaria - Pro Choice is about choice. Forcing an abortion or forbidding one are both denying choice.

I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of anyone imposing a medical procedure on someone against their will but none of the possible outcomes of her actions are without consequences to someone else. If she discontinues her meds she will only plunge deeper into delusions and madness and care and responsibility for raising the child will fall on someone else, if she continues on her meds there and the pregnancy is carried to term then there is a very strong possibility that the child will suffer birth defects that they will have to live with. And in either case someone else is going to have to shoulder the responsibility for raising the child. I have to think that in a case like this where there is a third party that obviously cares for and loves the individual and seems to have her real best interests in mind that they be allowed to make the decision since she seems incapable of making responsible decisions for herself.

To Jcantoni - As I stated previously, it is a slippery slope, and I don't know what the answer is - but you have made a number of conclusions based on one paragraph - If I had my way ??? Where did I say that ? and where did you conclude I was talking only about women ? and at one point did you conclude I was a liberal ? And because I can read an article and navigate the net, you conclude I turned out ok ? The Unabomber was a genius and taught at an Harvard - based on that one statement, would you conclude he was a liberal ? Because he was a mathematical genius, does that mean he was ' OK ' ? You make a lot of snap judgements but I would never conclude that a snapshot paragraph is the sum essence of who you are. Open up, learn to in your heart what you can't see with your eyes.

To lin-1175248 and jcantoni-- I too was raised by a mentally ill woman (bipolar with psychotic features-- same disorder as the guy who shot Gabrielle Gifford). As a direct result of her "parenting," one of my sibling is dead, the other is severely emotionally disturbed. I fared best by leaving home young, but I have my scars, and as an middle-aged adult, I am still cleaning up her messes. In Jcantoni's haste to make a political point about abortion, s/he demonstrates that s/he has NO IDEA of the psychological abuse and damage inflicted on family members by the mentally ill, or the burdens inflicted on them, even where there is no physical abuse. That said, I have a background in law myself, and find this one very tough. The judge in this case was truly between a rock and a hard place. The law favors the rights of guardians to make decisions for incompetents (and make no mistake, this woman is incompetent); the right to an early stage abortion is constitutionally protected. That said, as a policy matter, the courts should not be involving themselves at all in these private decisions because of the slippery slope that could result. Yet two lives are in danger as a result of this pregnancy and the family will also be unduly burdened by a baby who may have severe birth defects if the woman does stay on her drugs while pregnant (though I doubt she will). On the other hand, I find it just as disturbing and invasive that someone would be court-ordered to abort as it would be to be court-ordered to bear the child. That judge was damned if she did, damned if she didn't. I could have predicted the outcome though, because the rights of the mentally ill under the law are so strong. Mentally ill people have the right to refuse medication and totally destroy their own lives and the lives of everyone in their orbit. Who were the genius politicians who voted for that?

Everybody's voice wants to be heard except one - the child in the womb who one day could say, "Thank you for allowing me to live...I love my adoptive parents!" The most innocent person involved is the one many are saying should be killed. Every one involved in this discussion went through the same stage of development that her child is at in her womb. If you force this child to be aborted, this poor woman won't be unpregnant; she will be the mother of a dead baby. What kind of country are we becoming when we see death as a solution to a problem? As for the forced sterilization - can we say China? Nazi Germany?

@Big Picture--the reason why the mentally ill have rights is that not so long ago they didn't. When I moved to the state I live in, 30 years ago, there were several cases being used to grant more rights to the mentally ill. One was a case where the childern of a retired couple had had their parents committed involuntarily because the parents were spending their own money taking trips and enjoying their retirement. The children didn't think that was sane behavior and had them committede. At the time the 72 hour hold allowed the "drs" to ask a bunch of questions almost quarnteed to get crap answers from pure anger. This made it possible to further hold people and even force them to take drugs against their will. This was just 30 years ago. 30 years before that time, people with physical disablities, the blind, the deaf, people with other physical impairments could be and were committed to mental institutions, sterilized against their will, drugged, abused and often basically abandoned by their families and the system.

I feel for the woman, for the child she's already had and the one she may have now. However, the judge was wrong to try and make the decision. I think the parents need counseling, the woman needs closer subervision, probably for the rest of her life. But such care has been cut back and cut back until people like this woman are basically turned over to their families with a "good luck, get her to take her meds and she might be okay, sorry, that's all we can do for you and her" release.

As I said before, she shouldn't even be getting pregant, she should be protected from these men who are abusing her. Most people with this type of mental illness don't want anyone to even touch them, so what is going on here? As far as the children she's having; have the parents never heard of adoption?

I am sorry for your own experience, but having worked in health care for 20 years and watched the closure of many facilities that used to house and help people with severe illness because of 1)lack of funding and 2) the fact that some people will never be well enough to live on their own, ever, situations like these and your own have been and will continue to steadily increase, until such a time as we as a society decide to care for these individuals in a decent, humane and civilized manner. But that costs money, money which really has no productive value to our society. So now, the severly mentally ill are cared for by their families and when that fails some part of the law gets involved. A few years ago, where I live, just a few blocks away actually, the police ended up having to choose between one mentally ill man's life and the public, they chose the public.

See, Conservatives, this is what "choice" means. This is the government staying out of it, as you all like to claim you're in support of. This is a perfect illustration of the fact that, just because you don't get to tell others what to do, doesn't mean your choice is infringed upon. The government upheld the right of the individual over the right of her guardians, as they should have. Guardianship of an adult, doesn't mean possession over their bodies.

silva dolla, its always to that, the person inside the womb, well hate to shatter your bubble, but that voice doesnt have one til it comes out of the mother. yeah they should not allow a crazy person to have children not because the children willbecome themselves crazies or kill some person in the future, who knows, but because the mother lost all her right after being commited by the court, if the parents are the taking care of her, then the parent have that right. if the lawyer are the one yelling foul then let them take care of the children she have. people shouldnt have to suffer because she cannot control whats between her legs she should be sterilize, she is a danger to the children because she cannot take care of them. im sure the same goes for down syndrome adults, people wouldnt allow them to have children. soooo, this is fair game too.

Sarah...

For all fundamentalist conservatives...whether they live in the U.S., Saudi Arabia or wherever....one thing remains constant: Women are chattel.

When will the 50% of women in this country who allow their fates to be dominated and determined by men stand up for themselves? Why do women participate in their own enslavement and believe in religions that were created by men to worship men?

Silva dolla,

I share your thoughts exactly. Carefully and deliberately bringing this child to birth and placed for adoption should be paramount, incarcerate her until such time if need be. Than, clearly, without a doubt, this woman should then be sterilized at her guardian's request, as it appears she has no mental capacity to make any appropriate decisions for herself, ever!! Why this wasn't done prior to this is disconcerting given this persons past pregnancies. But, this would be considered "crazy talk", a forced abortion is a much better idea!

egad, some of the things people say. . . a person does not lose "all rights" by virtue of having a guardian appointed. and even if a guardian proposes abortion and consents to it, the issue can STILL become one that must be heard by the courts--in which case the legal standard is what the individual would decide if they were able to competently decide. guardian or no guardian, the person is always represented by legal counsel, usually appointed, to make sure that her interests and wishes are represented in the court.

As the adoptive mom of a beautiful boy who turned 9 years old yesterday, I must say that there are other options here. My son's birth mom is bi-polar and very mentally unstable. However, she did make the brave choice to have her child and put him up for adoption. Yes, he has special needs, but I can't imagine what this world would be like without him and I'm very thankful that she did not choose to abort him.

The parents of this woman should consider what's best for the children - and if they can't raise them, I'm sure there are others who would be thrilled to have a child!

That is very awesome robin123f.It is wonderful how it worked out for your son. It would be great if that happened all the time.

But. The birth mother might not agree to adoption.

Actually, the government doesn't force abortions. The point of the article was that the appellate court said "no way". This was one lower court trial judge, and the government corrected his ruling. At least we have a system of appeals, to catch things like this.

the government is not forcing this her perants have made this request and it is fair considering the overall situation. this is not an easy choice for anyone certainly not for her perants and i don't think it was an easy one for the judge.

you really can't state goverment when you should be stating judicial system. government is way to broad, not to mention here it clearly says that they are not.

No person no where has the right to tell any woman if they can or cannot have a child, or if the can or cannot abort a child. It is the sole decision of the woman carrying the baby and the man who fathered it. And that is all. It amazes me how much people request the government stay out of our lives, but then that same group insists on letting the government make personal decisions for us.

The horror is what Mom's meds can do to this infant. She may not carry to term because of them making all this a moot point. As scary as the idea of forced abortions or sterilization in what about the poor baby.

NO, unfortunately our government does not force abortions...it goes to the other side of the coin. I wish it did. We have too many unwanted pregnancies and children who will end up murdered by their parents. Would it not be better to avoid such crimes ? Let them abort...the embryo is only a POTENTIAL.....it is not a person....there are lots of potentials and possibilities but most of them will not materialize....do you feel you should have been smarter than you are ? that is an example.....of potential that did not come to pass.

Forcing the woman to have a baby is also cruel...and it has a chance of also being mentally ill...who is going to care for it? Does she just keep on popping out babies and someone else has to care for them because she is such a "Catholic"?

Actually, these acts were forced by various state governments on hundreds, if not thousands, of people until about 1960 or so. These practices were common, as was involuntary commitment to mental institutions for acts as simple as not paying your rent. State-run mental institutions were used as dumping grounds for those whom society had no solution and, once there, those folks were powerless and at the total mercy of those in charge. There are reasons why so many mental institutions are no longer in business.

Agree Jennifer, New York

What a rough situation for the parents! They are already raising the other child and say they can't handle another one. Funny she says she just could never have an abortion yet she's already had one. Who keeps knocking this chick up? Did I miss that part?

This is a sad one. Hate abortion, but I also hate when an unwanted child is brought into this world and then neglected or worse.

Good luck to them all!

@mo

I agree about the meds. But why not make the mom get off the meds since it could effect her baby. The doctor should hold the right to stop the prescription to the patient since circumstances have changed since first perscribed. The meds are not needed to sustain her own life, just her mental process. If she is mentally able to "preform the act of conception" then so be it, she made that choice. Now she should suffer the anguish of having to live without her meds during her pregnacy. She should not be forced to to abort the baby.

"Now our government forces abortions?" Nope, ALREADY have. Shamefully until relatively recently as well. #.TxiXGxzCoZA

There are not two sides to this. First of all... the parents were co-guardians of the woman, right? They had to have some control over who she was hanging out with and should have known that she was sexually active. It is partially the parents' responsibility that the woman got pregnant.

Secondly... @alumette You are sick. It is so un-American, unethical, and inhumane to think a country should adopt a policy to force abortions or sterilizations. I'm all for abortion as a CHOICE, but I would not stand with a government that allows a person's reproductive rights to be taken away. What about birth control? There are very, very easy and less invasive ways to prevent pregnancies. And don't argue against birth control by saying she is "Catholic". Her parents are trying to force an abortion on her, dammit.

Okay so lets go with this.... If women should not be forced to have abortions then women should not be forced to give birth either. It goes both ways.

Pregnancy will not make her sink deeper into madness - but going off her meds will - and if she doesn't go off the powerful meds she is on, it could harm her unborn child. Lord,what a dilemma.

Please take a look at this case: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535096,00.html

and tell me that the outcome is better when mentally ill people give birth. This little baby suffered the worst mankind could give. Things are not always black and white.

This story is misleading as it first suggests that a court ordered a mentally ill woman to get an abortion. But if you read more closely, the judge didn't order an abortion, but ordered that the mentally ill woman's parents parents be declared her legal guardians and that they then be given the power to force an abortion on their daughter IF THAT IS WHAT THE PARENTS WANT TO DO. The government is not forcing abortion or sterilization on anyone here.

The woman in question is 32, and it looks like she was competent for some time on her own, but then suffered what the article refers to as a "psychotic break." So she didn't need her parents to be her guardians until recently. Therefore, the parents aren't IN ANY WAY responsible for the woman having sex or getting pregnant.

There are plenty of people willing to adopt a child perhaps she can decide to be sterilized after a c section ...my mother had 7 children and suffers the same mental issues she gave 3 of us up, me being one of them and I'm alright. She's still dillusional but I still was able to visit w/her once in a while growing up...this judge seems old school and fortunate to behave so entitled...I work with people like this if its inappropriate then ax it! Thats not how it works!If she knows what she wants then ?

And I bet you would like to start with all the people you do not like. By the way, the dry cleaners called and your Brownshirt is ready.

stupid statement. I see your genes have been lost at the cleaners......get it ? Bimmer Man.

Her poor parents. First the horror of a mentally ill child, then watching as that child gets pregnant over and over again and leaves them to the rearing of her children.

Ahh...but if you were to off yourself, there would be room for this one.

I f'ing hate the trolls who come in here and blather on about too many people on earth blah blah blah. If you hate the world so much, do us all a favor and remove yourself from it.

I think you should be forced to have your testicles removed, FLAFREETHINKER. Let's see what your stand on forced strilization is then. Just who do you think you are to make such a draconic decision for a woman you don't even know? Are you a medical professional? Are you a psychiatrist? Do you know anything at all about mental illness? Do you really believe that because she's mentally ill she's not still a thinking feeling human being? This is a tragic situation, but forced abortion and forced strilization are indeed a slippery slope. Shades of Mengele.....you disgusting NAZI

Does she even know who he is?

Besides it's not his call on either the abortion or the sterilization. He may or may not express his feelings but he has no say at all.

He may not want to reveal that he is getting some from the crazy lady down the street.

It is a well known fact that some devious males will in fact rape mentally challenged females every chance they have. We see these issues in society and in mental facilities as well. Pointless to find the sperm donor.....

Klisew, any suggestions on avoiding her getting pregnant again??? She's mentally ill, you suggest she raise the baby on her own, is that even possible? don't think so. This is not forced sterilization is a treatment to avoid getting her off her medication which she can't be off from. Have you ever seen someone off their medication?? I have and its extremely sad and dangerous!!!

the identity of the father is another issue....bottom line...she has no business having a kid. Likely he is not exactly EInstein himself.

I agree alum. I'm not saying every case is like this but if these are the facts, than I see no problem. Take it case by case.

Thanks...absolutely.

alumette-

She's mentally ill, not mentally "retarded", as you said. Do you know the difference?

You were obviously no real friend to her, you can't even name her mental issue. And you should read things just a bit closer, to disprove the developing theory that you yourself are a slow learner.

indeed I was a psych nurse for years. This child was retarted and not mentally ill. Do you work for a pharmaceutical company by any chance ?

alum - you must be known as nurse ratched around the psych ward. Nurses like you with no compassion should not be near anyone especially when it comes to their health.I hope you are no longer a nurse.

alumette, I see that some people on this post are giving you a hard time, but I want you to know that I support your views on this matter 100%.

Thank you. In terms of these people giving me a hard time...no problem...I consider the source.

Let us not confuse genocide of normal and bright intelligent people with a need every society should have to control the explosion of genetically challenged births when their care falls under the umbrella of general society.

The issue here is that she can't be on her meds and carry the pregnancy to term, I believe there is a great risk of birth defects. If she is off her meds she goes crazy. It's a Catch-22. I think she should have an abortion for medical reasons. She can also have the baby if she is healthy enough to do it. I have no idea in this case. Put her back on her meds then get her to decide about sterilization once she is stable. The issue is that several doctors must agree on her diagnosis and what is appropriate for her in this case. If she is off meds, she just can't make a good decision, that's a simple but sad fact. This is a no win situation I just hope they do the best for her and all those involved.

Just like a man to bring up Sanger and PP, 97% of PP services are purely medical, and not abortions. Did you read PP anywhere in the story? I don't believe they should be able to force a abortion, on anyone, even the mentally ill.

You can not have your cake and eat it too. Pick your side. You are either for abortion(murder) or for life. You can not have it both ways.

Well then they can drop this bundle of joy with all kinds of issues from the medication on your doorstep Georgia, and every baby she has after that, why don't you just continue to clean up this woman's mess.

If she can't take care of the baby's she has, she shouldn't be able to have them.

This apparently isn't a one-time thing, she continues to get pregnant then can't take care of them, and apparently doesn't take into consideration what drugs or lack of will do to the baby or her.

Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves and it's not ok for them to continually burden society because they just want to...Georgia you must be a bleeding heart lefty.

Very nice what you said, therefore, you should adopt the baby!!!

Bimmerman, Prochoice means "Pro allowing every woman to decide the course of her own pregnancy". Prochoice is NOT pro abortion. I am pro-choice and I also have 3 children, never had an abortion. In your theory, anyone who is prochoice would not have children.

Hello...joy ? is that not a selfish design ? let her have a puppy...plenty at the pound.

You can not have your cake and eat it too. Pick your side. You are either for abortion(murder) or for life. You can not have it both ways.

This statement shows how intellectually stunted the new GOP has become. You obviously dont understand what "Pro-Choice" means. It means that we want the parents to have the freedom to choose what they want to do.

Bimmerman- First you bring up PP. I am pro-life for myself, and pro-choice for everyone else. You say you can't have it both ways, I say I only make decisions about my reproductive rights, my body, it's no one Else's business, or do they have a right to judge. Besides most of pro-life people are hypocrites that believe in the death penalty!

I already have adopted .....have all of you who claim to be so adamantly prolife? Pro choice means I support a woman's right to choose when to carry her pregnancy to term, when to give her baby up for adoption, and when, if she is capable, to raise that child herself. As an adopted mother, I feel even more strongly that pregnancy should be the mother's choice..... it was not an easy thing for my son's birth mother to carry him, go through the physical stress of growing and giving birth to him, and then give him to us as our forever child. I thank her every day in my heart. This woman WANTS to give birth, and her mental issues do not prevent her from a successful pregnancy.... no judge can decide that for her.

Valerie-

Unfortunately, her mental issues may very well prevent her from a successful pregnancy.

When she is off her medication, she is psychotic. But, the medication can cause birth defects and reproductive harm, which means she can't take her medications while pregnant. She is not capable of making rational decisions when off her medication. She doesn't even know what is real when she isn't on her drugs. She cannot take care of herself.

Schizophrenia is a progressive disease, and medication is unreliable. Resistances form, dosages must be changed, and even then the drugs don't always work or lose effectiveness. Living with schizophrenia is a torment. You don't know what is real, and if you're the type to hear voices, they might tell you to do awful things...and since you aren't rational, you are powerless to resist them. These are the people that kill their babies and tell the court the devil made them do it - and are being completely serious and truthful.

On top of that, both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have genetic components. That means her children have a much higher chance than the general population to inherit her awful mental illnesses.

There is no feel-good answer in this situation.

Finally someone addressed the issue of the affect the drugs would have on the fetus! Thank you, hwilson for using your brain. Your post clearly goes beyond the basic knee-jerk reaction to the story and addresses the more salient issues involved. It's so good to see well thought out posts like yours.

@ hwilson

thank you for pointing out what so many people seem to have missed in this article, the very real fact carrying this baby to term could be harmful to the mother, the child, and everyone around them. Even without the high likelyhood of birth defects the mother's anti-psychotics could cause, it sounds like the woman's parents and several medical professionals all have real concerns about the danger this woman might pose if taken off those medications. This is not about pro-life or pro-choice, it's about the rights of her parents as care-givers to make an incredibly difficult decision she is not capable of making, one that will affect all of them for the rest of their lives.

Forced abortion never, never, never. Figure out a better way to handle the situation. If the parents are overwhelmed than give the child or children to Catholic Charities to be placed in an adoptive home and focus on positive action. Forced abortion and sterilization is an abominable choice. We've already had too many African-American women come to that fate and it happens all over the world. Its bad enough that some parents force their teenage daughters to have abortions, but the courts????? And where are the males??? The men have to be held more responsible than they are in our culture.

TO: hwilson, kai and stpfc People with birth defects are worthy of being aborted? People with bi-polar and other mental disorders are worthy of being destroyed in the womb? An incredibly poor justification. How many people with birth defects would agree with you? How many people with bi-polar and other disorders would agree that is a just reason. Where does it end? Should we do away with anyone who has the chance of becoming autistic or down the road developing alzheimers? At this writing the child within that woman's womb has probably developed to the point of having nerve endings, a heart beat, functioning organs, and you think its a good idea to have that tiny person physically ripped apart. Well, I guess if the little person can't yet speak its alright? You seem to have forgotten that there was a time when you yourselves were at that state of development and you were significant and you counted. You ought to thank your mothers for not "choosing" to have your body torn to shreds and sucked out through a tube for convenience.

the assumption that the meds cannot be taken while pregnant is just that--an assumption. First of all, there are many different medications prescribed for people with MI, some off-label, some riskier than others. More to the point there is not reliable study information (for the same reason most psych drugs are not approved for kids--getting the study data is a barrier). Ex: anticonvulsants may be used---but there are women with epilepsy who have children. SSRI's and SGA's may be used--but in our pharma-happy world, these are increasingly used by people with mental heatlh symptoms who are not seriously mentally ill--like the abilify ads targeting women who are on antidepressants but still feel depressed. People are trying to make black and white in this story where it does not exist (except that the lower court judge shouldn't be on the bench)

Not to mention the fact that all the people crying "What about adoption?" aren't giving careful consideration to the incredibly high likelihood that if this child is carried to term, it WILL have birth defects, not to mention a strong genetic pre-disposition to the same mental illnesses it's mother is currently suffering.

STPFC seems to have a lot against people with birth defects and/or mental illness. You are beginning to sound paranoid.

sure...yeah...put it up for adoption...is it not like sweeping dirt under the rug ? heck of a lot harder for these poor girls to give up their kids than to have a D+C. They have forgotten the following day.

Exactly. Well said.

we have a genetics expert here.....how many normal kids are the offsprings of retarded people ? damn few if any....yes I use the term retarted since it is not to be confused with mental illness.....

The article is about a mentally ill woman, NOT mentally retarded!!

the outcome is the same. She is not able to care for her children and genetically...well...who is to say ? Russian roulette anyone ?

Alumette--there are quite a few "normal" children of "retarded" people, depending on the cause of the retardation. Some mental retardation is the result of a lack of oxygen at birth--other mental retardation is a result of running a high fever in childhood or the mother having measles or other illness during the pregnancy. Such individuals are at no higher of a risk of having a mentally retarded child than anyone else--and most mentally retarded people are born to those considered "normal."

The main issue with children being born to mentally retarded individuals who then raise them (which happens all the time in poorer communities which have little or poor access to high-quality obstetricians, prenatal, and postnatal care) is that even though they are "normal" at birth, they do not receive the sort of stimulation needed for them to progress--they wind up being "slow" because of poor nutrition and inadequate care.

But, that is neither here nor there when it comes to this particular individual--there is no good solution here. The woman would not want to have an abortion if she were competent, and apparently opposes it though she is incompetent. She is in the care of her parents--and is apparently a risk in terms of being violent if she goes off her meds. But, if she stays on her meds, it will damage the fetus (and may already have done so). The judge was definitely going beyond her bounds by ordering that the woman be sterilized, as not even the parents had requested that.

There just is no good solution--the kindest one would be to find some way to get the woman off her meds but keep her as comfortable as possible (which would probably involve a heck of a lot of money and someone with specialization in treating schizophrenia without pharmaceuticals--I understand that Loren Mosher advocated this, and that perhaps there is a standard treatment protocol). Then, when the child is delivered, to ask the parents if they would like to raise the grandchild or to place it for adoption, as the mother already has been declared incompetent to care for children. The child might not be placeable, depending on the degree of damage from the meds the woman is taking now--but this is the kindest solution.

If the parents are being denied their wishes, it seems fair that someone else takes on this woman's care until after the child is born. Again, that's a lot of money. The people who seem bent on helping this woman give birth, which is her preference, really should be coughing up the money for her care. Someone should be researching treatments for schizophrenia that don't involve drugs--as there are advocates for this and perhaps they have alternative treatments. In fact, why aren't those people coming forward and offering their help, as this is a great case in which they might be helpful. Who knows, they might help this woman more than the drugs are?

But, this is not as simple a case as alumette wants to make it. Arguments based on genetics are extremely problematic--we do not have the right to refuse to allow people to procreate based on genetics, nor should we. Not all societies regard people with schizophrenia as problematic--there are cultures who regard such people as visionaries (and some schizophrenics have produced marvelous art and philosophy); not everyone regards those who are "retarded" as being a burden. Refusing to procreate is the option of those who are told that they have genetic "abnormalities." Stephen Hawking might not have been born (and might not have had children), Lou Gehrig might not have been born, Mozart and Emily Dickenson and millions of others who have made great advancements in human history might never have been born. Those who think that Jews are genetically "abnormal" or Africans are genetically "abnormal" might have succeeded in genocide against both groups. Research has found that the parents of children with Down Syndrome have happier marriages.

Seriously--people should make decisions for themselves. In this case, the question is whether to consider the needs and wishes of the guardians or the needs and wishes of the patient--as they are at odds. Unless someone is willing to take on the job of caring for this woman without her medication and to take on the costs, there is a very serious implication here in forcing the parents to shoulder both costs and danger against their wishes. There just is no good answer.

you better believe it mama....these innocent little dogs do not want to be there and the owners should go to jail for being irresponsible...and criminal. To abort an embryo ( that looks like a blood clot) because its potential is a drain to society is not only desirable but it is primordial. Get the difference....it is not a human...it is potential like you are potential that never materialized.....

Have you ever considered how tired these parents are, sure they did a bang up job, but they are done, how many more problems that their daughter creates they have to clean up, when does their responsibility end? If they have to do the work, they should get the say so. If the daughter wants the child then she should be responsible for it...oops, she can't because she can't make responsible decisions, obviously or the parents wouldn't be cleaning up her mess.

Unlike so many in our society who find it easy to dictate what everyone else should do with their lives, these parents are being responsible - way after they legally have to be. They are taking full responsibility not only for their mentally ill daughter,but their grandchild as well.I don't know very many people who would step up to the plate like that. And yet people will still throw stones at them. Poor people - they can't win for losing.

Amen! People are trying to put a one size fits all solution onto this very Gorgonian situation.God, I feel for her parents.

AKchic, excellent post.

AKchic, thank you for a very wise post.

Too late, at least this time, how about she stop having irresponsible sex...since she obviously can't make responsible judgement calls, how about she gets her tubes tied. I really don't get the problem with that.

If she can't take care of herself, much less a child, there is no question what should be done.

Exactly how hard is it?

That is for intelligent and informed people. Of course, it would be a great solution but what do we have here ? hello !

exactly. Make these people responsible for perhaps decades of medical bills. I do not want my tax money going there...

k

Right!!! We are supposed to just sit back and allow this lady to have another child and then WE will take care of it! In the end somebody will have to decide what happens to this baby (if she is allowed to have it)... by then we will all (tax payers) be paying for it. I can not stand this way of thinking. In certain cases/situations I do believe that decisions should be made on these matters. This is one of them!

K well, you stand in her shoes. Let me know how you feel when someone tells you "hey, you're certified crazy and we're going to force sedate you, force scrape that abomination out of your womb, and then while you're under, we're gonna tie your tubes. But you won't know any of this is happening because well lets face it, you aren't competent and we don't feel you are worthy of knowing the details."

Yeah, sounds pretty draconian to me.

Who put you in charge, Hitler?

exactly. Nice to hear such a sound argument.

I agree with some of what you said but not all. What I do agree is that since she's not mentally able to take care of herself or even her children (she thought she had a girl but had a boy). And since the parents have guardianship over her and the children then the parents are asking for this abortion and also to sterilize her in order for her to stop having kids. She can't take care of them because she's mentally disturbed, and even on the meds they just keep her "stable" but she's still delusional. I've heard stories (just google) from news reports of women who had issues with having kid. Look at Natalie Suleman that woman who already had 6 kids but had a doctor invitro her another dozen. We don't want to say things but in reality, she's insane and this woman is also.

What do we do with the mentally insane and unstable? In the article the parent's attorney had a point, taking her off the medications so she can have the children will make her more delusional and mentally unstable. And so doing she may be a danger not only to herself but to her children or even her parents. Heck even to the regular citizen that happens to walk past her vision. The parents are afraid of their daughter and what she could do pure and simple.

Agreed, MGP. Some mental illness is hereditary as well.

Not for nothing, but if her parents, the people curerntly caring for her and presumably the ones who know and love her best, foresee a sad or hazardous outcome and have come to the decision that this is the safest and best course, who are we, any of us, to question their decision?