Woman kills and partially eats baby, ingests its brains... but its ok, it wasn't her fault. The DEVIL made her do it.

Is it me or is it time for that excuse to go the way of the dinosaur? Seriously, there is no excuse for any kind of crime such as this, but it always seems ol' Scratch gets the credit every time.

The most religious people are the ones most susceptible to this horrible "devil forcing action" problem. I've never heard of an Atheistic killer who was forced to do anything evil, so is this strictly a Christian problem? That is a rhetorical question... but I do get so tired of this "blaming" behavior our society has become so accustomed to.

Views: 118

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The media often labels things antipsychotic that aren't actually APs or AAPs.
Drugs like Topomax (Migranes/depression/anxiety) are often labelled antipsychotics in the media.
So are benzos like Xanax. (Anxiety, siezures,etc).
Even things that actually are antipsychotics are prescribed for a wide range of things that have nothing to do with mental illness.

Just so I'm clear on this, do you support the forced sterilization of anyone that's diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety, borderline personality disorder, any of the schizo disorders(there are a bunch. Not all hear voices.), ADHD (Yes, APs are sometimes given for ADHD), OCD, SAD, MDD, epilepsy, PTSD, or tourettes?

As if people taking antipsychotics didn't have enough to deal with from the side effects from their medicine and the stigma of taking an AP now we have to sterilize them too?
Er, well, maybe, but only if there's a proven genetic component to the psychosis. Even then, the line between creativity and insanity is a little hazy. Not to mention that even a genetic predisposition to insanity isn't a guarantee. I'm kinda thinking that just keeping 'em locked up would do well enough, thanks.
It is legal in certain cases in Canada to sterilize a person...

"Recent court discussions in Manitoba have investigated the legality and ethical permissibility of involuntary sterilization of the mentally disabled. Focusing on those individuals found legally incompetent, the 1990 and 1992 reports outlined the scenarios where an involuntary sterilization could be warranted. As stated by the 1990 discussion, three conditions are necessary for an individual to undergo any medical procedure.

* The individual must be informed of both the nature, and risks/benefits of the procedure.
* The consent must be voluntary, not the product of coercion, threat, or fraud.
* The individual must be competent enough to give the above consent.

Individuals who are legally incompetent include minors and sufficiently-disabled adults.

The discussion reached a consensus that involuntary sterilization (or sterilization with substituted consent) is only permissible if it has an explicit positive effect on the physical or mental health of the individual: this is called therapeutic sterilization. One such case involved was a seriously disabled girl with an aversive phobia to blood, who was scheduled to undergo a hysterectomy. The rationale of the surgery was not eugenic, but rather to protect the girl from the direct mental trauma that would likely arise upon initiation of menses. This judgement was seen to be on the very threshold between therapeutic and nontherapeutic surgical intervention.

I am not sure how I feel our legal state of it as it is something I am very uncomfortable with on a personal level.
Obviously she's bat shit nuts, however the voice could have been attributed to anyone her delusion dictated.
Baby is much better off now, by the way, than living with mama, don't you think?
Yes...Could you imagine being raised by two schizophrenic parents?
In the first case,the chances of you having it would be high
In the second place,you'd suffer neglect and likely abuse as well, since they would not be able to care for you or raise you properely. It would not be a nice childhood,that's for sure.
And i also think in some cases,lke these two parents,they both should have been sterilized.
Mm, again, if the disease is treatable, and not guaranteed to be passed to all offspring, sterilization is overboard. What we don't hear about are the people with mental illness who stay on their meds, hold down jobs, and don't cause problems. We should not let fear govern decisions here, or on any other issue.
I'm interested in this sterilization for psychotics idea. What are the ethics to be considered? Where do we draw the line?
I am in agreement on the surface, but I'm not sure how far it could go.
There is a balancing of rights which our current ethical structure biases in favor of individual freedoms. I suspect that many family members, of mentally disabled persons, also want their child or relative sterilized. Actually I don't suspect, it, I know it. However, forced medical procedures are considered, legally, assault. They violate personal autonomy, a critical medical ethics issue.

An additional argument is made related to eugenics, which is probably another topic for heated discussion. Probably in a different discussion topic (has it already been done?). Eugenics has a very ugly history, but does it also have a rational basis? Good question. Personally, I'm against it. It easily gets into some isms that are very complicated.

I do think that the ethical basis for recommending, even encouraging or rewarding, sterilization, leaves an opening for progress. I suspect that many people are afraid to bring it up. If someone is unable to care for themselves, then how can they care for children? If you offer a reward for sterilization, and someone accepts it, does that mean that they made an independent choice? Somebody want to start a separate topic?
and the worst part is she will probably be not guilty due to insanity and get to spend the rest her life in a comfortable psych hospital bed doped up on meds.
Not that I have the experience but for sure being doped up in a hospital is better than prison. Didn't the lady who stuck her baby in the microwave get off on insanity plea?

I have read mental health medical records and I remember one who got disability checks b/c her mental health disorder kept her from working. It was being paranoid that coworkers were talking about her. It didn't stop her from alcohol and drug abuse though. Too bad she wasn't paranoid the liquor bottles and crack pipe were talking about her.
Didn't the lady who stuck her baby in the microwave get off on insanity plea?

Are you suggesting that she wasn't insane?
not guilty for the crime due to insanity. They don't go to prison b/c they didn't know it was wrong. But yet they know it was wrong after the fact - after 'the voices' tell them to do it.
response to joey- it's my opinion so yes, why not. Those with mental illness are most likely to harm or produce mentally ill children. I have not been clinically diagnosed as mentally ill, I don't think I'm mentally ill, I'm not on any medication, but I very badly want to be sterilized and no one will agree to do it. I know very well I could not raise a child properly and atleast I have self knowledge of this. I shall not be in the news for brutally murdering a child with a kitchen utensil.
I can't suggest sterilization but it's okay to make fun of them for being crazy?




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service