S/O...Forced sterilization

[Murphy101]

13 hours ago, SKL said:

Well there is the question of whether fertility is of any use to the type of person so cognitively impaired that they cannot consent or protect themselves and obviously cannot raise children.  If a child is born with an extra body part that is not useful, do we wait until he is capable of informed consent before we feel justified in removing it?  No, especially not if having the extra part comes with risks of physical, social, or emotional difficulties.

In your examples of a dangerous neighborhood or jail/prison, the individuals may still be able and willing to raise children at some point in their lives.

And the risk of being raped is different for people who can't understand the risk before the fact and can't effectively make a report afterwards.

There are various articles on this if you google, but this one says that people with intellectual disabilities are 7x as likely to be victims of sexual assault.  https://www.npr.org/2018/01/08/570224090/the-sexual-assault-epidemic-no-one-talks-about

Actually if the “extra” or “useless” body part is not causing any actual disfunction of the body and the person is otherwise healthy - they often do not remove it just to remove it until the child can decide for themselves.  There’s no reason to add health risk if the body is otherwise perfectly healthy.  I’m curious to know how many people would force sterilization on CI who would conversely think infant boy circumcision or getting babies’ ears pierced is immoral? (Not directed at you, just curious.)

And this “it’s not of any use to them anyways” is also a terrible precedent to set. Again why would we permit doing to CI people things we would never think okay to do literally to any other people?  And if they are less deserving of equal human status, then what else should we allow to be done to them that we would not be okay with being done to us or doing to others? Maybe since they can live perfectly fine with just one kidney, we should decide they don’t have any use for two and remove one of those?  If they swing the rationalizations far enough I’m certain many could probably even convince themselves that since the CI could be given a couple $100 for it and there’s probably some risk of kidney stones (who would want to have stones in two kidneys?!) it’s even helpful and best for their finances and comfort to not have 2 kidneys.  

I keep coming back to this and no one seems to address it.

Why would it be okay to do things to CIs that it is not okay to do to criminals?  And if it is okay, and we go with that logic, what’s preventing anything else being done to them?  Nothing that I can reason

Why would it be okay to tell ANY potential rape victims they should just get sterilized now?

And that’s not even getting into that “7x more likely” is still a very small number.

8.7 out of 1000 with mental disability age 12 and older.  
4.4 out a 1000 of people over age 12 in general.

It’s not as terrifying as saying 7 times more likely, but it’s just accurate. Now I will absolutely say I wish the numbers were zero. I will absolutely say I wish we had a better system for punishing rapists.

But I would not run out to sterilize someone for fear of them being the 10 out of a 1000.  It seems to making my decision based on the far more likelihood of them being the 990 is the more ethical and reasonable action. 
 

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Actually if the “extra” or “useless” body part is not causing any actual disfunction of the body and the person is otherwise healthy - they often do not remove it just to remove it until the child can decide for themselves.  There’s no reason to add health risk if the body is otherwise perfectly healthy.  I’m curious to know how many people would force sterilization on CI who would conversely think infant boy circumcision or getting babies’ ears pierced is immoral? (Not directed at you, just curious.)

And this “it’s not of any use to them anyways” is also a terrible precedent to set. Again why would we permit doing to CI people things we would never think okay to do literally to any other people?  And if they are less deserving of equal human status, then what else should we allow to be done to them that we would not be okay with being done to us or doing to others? Maybe since they can live perfectly fine with just one kidney, we should decide they don’t have any use for two and remove one of those?  If they swing the rationalizations far enough I’m certain many could probably even convince themselves that since the CI could be given a couple $100 for it and there’s probably some risk of kidney stones (who would want to have stones in two kidneys?!) it’s even helpful and best for their finances and comfort to not have 2 kidneys.  

I keep coming back to this and no one seems to address it.

Why would it be okay to do things to CIs that it is not okay to do to criminals?  And if it is okay, and we go with that logic, what’s preventing anything else being done to them?  Nothing that I can reason

Why would it be okay to tell ANY potential rape victims they should just get sterilized now?

And that’s not even getting into that “7x more likely” is still a very small number.

8.7 out of 1000 with mental disability age 12 and older.  
4.4 out a 1000 of people over age 12 in general.

It’s not as terrifying as saying 7 times more likely, but it’s just accurate. Now I will absolutely say I wish the numbers were zero. I will absolutely say I wish we had a better system for punishing rapists.

But I would not run out to sterilize someone for fear of them being the 10 out of a 1000.  It seems to making my decision based on the far more likelihood of them being the 990 is the more ethical and reasonable action. 
 

Well I think it is significant that with the CI we're talking about, they have caregivers who possess the legal right to make health decisions for them, because it is understood that they don't have the capacity to make those decisions for themselves.  That is different from the other populations you are talking about.

And 7x more likely IS a pretty big number.  I don't know where you got your 4.4/1000 number, but that is way way low if it's supposed to represent victims of sexual assault / rape.  Is your 4.4 over a short time period or what?  About 15% of US women can expect to be raped (plus 3% attempted raped) in their lifetime.

Edited July 8, 2021 by SKL

[SKL]

Well in a perfect world, this is a no-brainer because no unplanned pregnancies are going to happen where one partner is CI.

It's not a perfect, simple world.  Real people have to weigh real risks.

[Murphy101]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well I think it is significant that with the CI we're talking about, they have caregivers who possess the legal right to make health decisions for them, because it is understood that they don't have the capacity to make those decisions for themselves.  That is different from the other populations you are talking about.

And 7x more likely IS a pretty big number.  I don't know where you got your 4.4/1000 number, but that is way way low if it's supposed to represent victims of sexual assault / rape.  Is your 4.4 over a short time period or what?  About 15% of US women can expect to be raped (plus 3% attempted raped) in their lifetime.

But caregivers can’t just do anything medical to them under that umbrella term. For example, I’m sure there are people who could argue that they need money to care for a person with CI, and two kidneys isn’t even necessary, so is it okay to make a CI donate a kidney or set them up to sell one? 

I got those numbers from the link you posted.  This chart is where that “7% greater risk” is taken from according that article.

 

[Murphy101]

9 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Yes, and I'm not following the connection between sterilization and being a victim of sexual violence. Sterilization doesn't prevent rape. It just prevents the possibility of conception. A terrible outcome of rape but it sterilization doesn't make rape less bad. 

And I hate the idea of thinking of sexual organs as useless body parts. They would "useless" in this case because someone else decided that they were useless. 

Right. Sexual organs that are healthy and functioning as they are supposed to are useful even if we never have children and after we are past child bearing age. 

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

But caregivers can’t just do anything medical to them under that umbrella term. For example, I’m sure there are people who could argue that they need money to care for a person with CI, and two kidneys isn’t even necessary, so is it okay to make a CI donate a kidney or set them up to sell one? 

I got those numbers from the link you posted.  This chart is where that “7% greater risk” is taken from according that article.

 

OK, so this is over a short time period, not the person's lifetime.

They mention it's 12x for women with intellectual disabilities.

Intact kidneys don't come with measurable risks, so that is not a good comparison IMO.

One less-bad (but not great) comparison would be that I required my minor kids to get the Covid vax.  Because sure, there is a decent chance they would never get or spread Covid, but I decided that their risk from the vax was less than the risk of them getting and [especially] spreading Covid.  I had the right to require it and I did.  Most Americans wouldn't consider this a big moral dilemma.

When it comes to the severe CI population, is there any serious group of people who think it is better that they procreate?  I don't think so.  The ethics of allowing populations to reproduce as they see fit really don't apply to this group IMO.  Or, it is up to their legal caregivers to decide whether or not those ethics apply.

Anyhoo.  We can agree to disagree.  But for anyone I know in this real situation (and I do know some), I have nothing but support for them if they decide to take this step.

Edited July 8, 2021 by SKL

[JumpyTheFrog]

For those who are against sterilization, are you just as against them getting an IUD or Norplant (birth control that is about as foolproof as possible)?

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

OK, so this is over a short time period, not the person's lifetime.

They mention it's 12x for women with intellectual disabilities.

12x more was still a very low actual number of women out of 1000.
 

Intact kidneys don't come with measurable risks, so that is not a good comparison IMO.

Sure they do.  Do you have any idea how many people get kidney stones? (I don’t but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s more than 7 in 1000 people.) What if you could reduce the chances of a CI person by half just by getting rid of half the number of kidneys? 

When it comes to the severe CI population, is there any serious group of people who think it is better that they procreate?  I don't think so.  The ethics of allowing populations to reproduce as they see fit really don't apply to this group IMO.  Or, it is up to their legal caregivers to decide whether or not those ethics apply.

No one is arguing they should be encouraged to have sex and thus create babies.  Ethics apply to all people or they don’t. Again. I don’t think death row inmates should procreate either but no one advocates for forcing birth control or sterilizing them either. So why the CI? 

 

[Dmmetler]

There are multiple things in play that are really needed here. Not just for those with intellectual disabilities, but overall. 

 

The first is that BC availability, including long term BC and sterilization, needs to be made available without cost and with limited gatekeeping, only to the level really medically required. In many cases, people who aren't in a good place to have a child will choose not to do so when they have options. (This is also why states that added BC coverage and more universal health Care tend to have lower abortion rates). It's the "bowls of condoms on every flat surface in a college dorm" approach.  One frustration I've known plenty of women to face is finding it impossible to get a tubal ligation even if they really should not get pregnant medically because "you're too young" (but in several cases, their same age partners were able to get vasectomies with no extra gatekeeping). 

 

The second is extremely robust sex education, including BC use, focused on the developmental needs of the person. Again,with appropriate education, many people who are intellectually disabled, and those who should forgo childrearing for medical reasons, including taking psychiatric medications, will choose to do so. It is not a case of "involuntary", but making it easy to do so voluntarily. Long term BC is often a good option that doesn't prelude having children when/if the time is right. 

 

The third is excellent social support nets for those who do have children. Many of the "unable to care for children" cases are less "unable" and more "unable under current conditions". We need excellent, affordable, robust mental health and substance abuse services. We need good medical care. We need social support for pregnancy and parenting. That won't handle all situations, but it would reduce the "shouldn't have children" dramatically. 

 

 

And, we need to totally revamp many group settings and our culture as a whole to make sexual abuse and assault less likely or less possible. A 7x greater likelihood of abuse is not a reason to put girls on BC so they don't get pregnant. It's a reason to rebuild the system so that they don't get assaulted in the first place! The same is true in prisons, etc. (Although, again, BC should be available if desired). 

[BusyMom5]

I think many of you are veering off topic.  This thread was specifically about about people with CI, to the point that they are legally incapable of making their own decisions.   Many are wards of the state or have family appointed to give consent for any medical procedure.  They are unable to live alone or care for themselves without a lot if extra support. This is not about eugenics, female prisoners, drug addicts, rape victims, etc.   (Those are all good discussions to have,  btw).  

In my own limited experience,  just knowing a few foster moms who have kids from these types of situations,  these mothers will never be able to care for their baby or child because they do not have the skills to do so- simple things like feeding, changing,  teething, managing a sick or crying baby.  Each case is unique,  but I feel its negligence on the part of caregivers if the woman continues to get PG, give birth, and have her baby taken by the state.  I believe its emotionally abusive.  

This CI person is both deemed legally unable to make medical decisions, yet the people who make the decision cannot make it without consent- which the CI person legally is not capable of giving!  Its a circular argument.   And if said person gives their consent after a councilor session, it is really consent or coercion?  

We have many options to prevent pregnancy in women besides sterilization (which i think should be a last resort).  In men, there really isn't another option.   This decision is not made to control one's activity,  rather a way to allow a more normal life without the birth of a child he cannot care for.  I think its the compassionate, loving choice for the OP to make.

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

For those who are against sterilization, are you just as against them getting an IUD or Norplant (birth control that is about as foolproof as possible)?

I don't have a fully formed opinion on this. But, if it were my daughter and she was getting married and having children was out of the question, I would rather receive her consent for sterilization than for either of those options. An IUD or Norplant has the potential to prevent a very young human (blastocyst, if you prefer) from implanting and my conscience would not be easy with that. 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, BusyMom5 said:

I think many of you are veering off topic.  This thread was specifically about about people with CI, to the point that they are legally incapable of making their own decisions.   Many are wards of the state or have family appointed to give consent for any medical procedure.  They are unable to live alone or care for themselves without a lot if extra support.

…
Each case is unique,  but I feel its negligence on the part of caregivers if the woman continues to get PG, give birth, and have her baby taken by the state.  I believe its emotionally abusive.  

This CI person is both deemed legally unable to make medical decisions, yet the people who make the decision cannot make it without consent- which the CI person legally is not capable of giving!  Its a circular argument.   

It is not a circular argument.

Person cannot consent bc they are low end CI. Means >

they cannot consent to sex which means >

if they get pregnant it means it was not consensual. (Bc they lack the mental capacity to consent to such an act) which means >

therefore they supposedly have caregivers to care for them who do not want to give an opportunity for sex/pregnancy which means >

they should not be in situations where sex is an option for them unless 

1) they are the approx 7 per 1000 who might be sexually abused which means >

a) either the caregiver allowed it - which is the only circumstance where they would “continue to get pregnant”

Or 

b) the caregiver is horrified that this happened in what should have been a trusted safe environment and takes steps to remove the CI victim from that environment so it does not happen again. 

or 

2) the truth is that while they may be very CI it is not actually enough that they are not for the most part permitted to go about their life as most other free adults and while we might not wish for them to procreate they do in fact still retain the ability to make that decision themselves.

I see nothing circular about this reasoning. 

[Lecka]

I really think there are many people who can consent to sex but still need help in other ways.

I think they are separate questions.

I think there are people where it’s the same thing, they can’t consent to sex.

But I think there are other people who can, and the real inappropriate controlling thing is to prevent them from having a consensual relationship.

As far as (2) that the fact they are CI means they are permitted to go about their life like other people…….. well, it is just not true that it is either 0 or 100.  What about a middle ground that includes concerns about birth control.  

[Lecka]

I don’t think sex between two CI individuals is automatically consensual.

I don’t think sex between two 14-year-olds is automatically consensual.

 

[ieta_cassiopeia]

Given what OP has described in subsequent posts, I'm not sure sterilisation would in her son's case be forced; rather, it has been assented to the best of OP's son's ability. I would consider that reasonably likely to be as much consent as OP's son is capable of providing, and would consider sterilisation ethical on that basis. From the descriptions given, this would be a great example of helping people with cognitive impairments have input into decisions, even when the more complex areas of the matter have been delegated to guardians who can consider the full implications of each option.

 

For people who cannot meaningfully consent/assent even to OP's son's extent (or who reject sterilisation altogether), but who medically need to be prevented from having children, a reversible (but long-term, if that's the most appropriate decision from a medical standpoint) birth control method would be better. It takes the pressure off everyone, and allows further discussion. Even people with severe cognitive disabilities often increase their ability to communicate their opinions with age and maturity, potentially allowing for subsequent input into renewal of the birth control, sterilisation, or some other method entirely. (Laws vary wildly though, definitely check before proceeding).

[SKL]

I agree that the ability to provide informed consent to a medical procedure is different from the ability to consent to sex.  And that there are different ethics involved in having another person control that consent.

I can see scenarios where two adults with relatively equal power/understanding of sex could consent to having sex with each other, even if those same people might not be capable of the level of informed consent generally needed for long-term conception prevention.

I have a friend whose daughter is a CI young adult, and she worries that her daughter might choose to do something that could lead to pregnancy without realizing the major implications.  Her daughter has a job and a social life, and there is no realistic way to supervise her every move 24/7.  Likewise there is no realistic way to make sure she understands all the implications of every choice. 

To add another dimension - one thing my friend has mentioned is that the daughter doesn't come across as cognitively impaired, unless you know her a bit.  She's "normal-looking," friendly and outgoing, and very open to suggestion.  Mom worries that others might think she understands more than she actually does, and that she's "consenting" when she actually isn't.

Edited July 9, 2021 by SKL

[katilac]

On 7/6/2021 at 4:10 PM, Murphy101 said:

 To me if someone is so cognitively impaired that something so drastic is even being considered, it seems to me that person should not be allowed to have sex bc they cannot actually consent to the risk of reproducing?   How is such a person managing to live their day to day life on their own without assistance and supervision?

Most of them do have assistance and supervision to help them manage day to day life. That doesn't equal never being left alone long enough to have sex. 

 

On 7/6/2021 at 8:55 PM, Murphy101 said:

And that’s the kicker for me. If they are for all legal and social intent to be categorized as a child and your own perception of them is like that of a child needing a primary daily caregiver - young children of such limited development in our society are not going to have sexual relations condoned and it’s usually illegal.  So yes, for me, I’d probably restrict their activities to those with less risk of sexual abuse and I would never encourage them in thinking they should marry or date either.  And yes, building a community of like-minded people who will step up when the parents cannot and a society that offers support would be extremely helpful and is sadly lacking for most people.  I hope that changes.

I have nephews and a niece of low IQ (62-75) plus some other Issues who have had children.  All their children have been removed from their care by the state shortly after the birth or arranged at the birth. (5 total)

Do I like that? Nope.  Do I wish they could take care of their children? Yes. But despite their low IQ they are capable of basic decision making and living in their own for the most part.   And their children are well cared and loved by their new families.  Most eventually decided on long term birth control solutions on their own.  They did not have to be forced to it.

 

 

On 7/7/2021 at 11:20 PM, Murphy101 said:

But none of these people do we say should have forced sterilization.

Actually, lots of peope are in favor of forcibly sterilizing abusive parents. Lose parental rights to multiple children due to abuse or intentional neglect? I'd probably be okay with it, or at minimum something like 3 years of forced birth control for every kid you abused. Murder a child? Sure, forcibly sterilize them, I'm down with that.

On 7/8/2021 at 2:27 PM, Murphy101 said:

Actually if the “extra” or “useless” body part is not causing any actual disfunction of the body and the person is otherwise healthy - they often do not remove it just to remove it until the child can decide for themselves.  There’s no reason to add health risk if the body is otherwise perfectly healthy.  I’m curious to know how many people would force sterilization on CI who would conversely think infant boy circumcision or getting babies’ ears pierced is immoral? (Not directed at you, just curious.)

And this “it’s not of any use to them anyways” is also a terrible precedent to set. Again why would we permit doing to CI people things we would never think okay to do literally to any other people?  And if they are less deserving of equal human status, then what else should we allow to be done to them that we would not be okay with being done to us or doing to others?  

 

To the first part: what extra body parts are commonly left in place? I honestly cannot think of any. Extra fingers and toes are fairly common and generally removed within a few months. Maybe a really small vestigal tail? Anything else? 

To the last part: not wanting someone to marry because they aren't capable of raising kids is treating them as less deserving of equal human status, imo. It's very unfortunate that the language of being children or like children persists,  because that naturally leads to some people thinking that, if children should never have sex or get married, then cognitively impaired adults should never have sex or get married, but they are fundamentally different situations. Not reaching a specific intellectual level does not automatically render a person forever a child. 

Plus, of course, it is well nigh impossible to supervise an adult so closely that they never have the chance to have sex. I mean, it doesn't have to take long, lol. 

It's a terrible dilemma for anyone with guardianship of a male, because long-term birth control is not an option. If a parent makes a thoughtful decision based on the information available, that's all we can ask. 

On 7/8/2021 at 2:43 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

 And I hate the idea of thinking of sexual organs as useless body parts. They would "useless" in this case because someone else decided that they were useless. 

Sterilization does not render sexual organs into useless body parts. 

On 7/8/2021 at 4:15 PM, Dmmetler said:

There are multiple things in play that are really needed here. Not just for those with intellectual disabilities, but overall. 

 

The first is that BC availability, including long term BC and sterilization, needs to be made available without cost and with limited gatekeeping, only to the level really medically required. In many cases, people who aren't in a good place to have a child will choose not to do so when they have options. (This is also why states that added BC coverage and more universal health Care tend to have lower abortion rates). It's the "bowls of condoms on every flat surface in a college dorm" approach.  One frustration I've known plenty of women to face is finding it impossible to get a tubal ligation even if they really should not get pregnant medically because "you're too young" (but in several cases, their same age partners were able to get vasectomies with no extra gatekeeping). 

 

The second is extremely robust sex education, including BC use, focused on the developmental needs of the person. Again,with appropriate education, many people who are intellectually disabled, and those who should forgo childrearing for medical reasons, including taking psychiatric medications, will choose to do so. It is not a case of "involuntary", but making it easy to do so voluntarily. Long term BC is often a good option that doesn't prelude having children when/if the time is right. 

 

The third is excellent social support nets for those who do have children. Many of the "unable to care for children" cases are less "unable" and more "unable under current conditions". We need excellent, affordable, robust mental health and substance abuse services. We need good medical care. We need social support for pregnancy and parenting. That won't handle all situations, but it would reduce the "shouldn't have children" dramatically. 

 

 

And, we need to totally revamp many group settings and our culture as a whole to make sexual abuse and assault less likely or less possible. A 7x greater likelihood of abuse is not a reason to put girls on BC so they don't get pregnant. It's a reason to rebuild the system so that they don't get assaulted in the first place! The same is true in prisons, etc. (Although, again, BC should be available if desired). 

I agree with just about everything in this post, and certainly as a society we should rebuild the system, but parents have to make decisions based on what's happening with their own kid, right now. On an individual basis, I would never tell a parent that a greater likelihood of abuse is not a reason to put their dd on birth control. 

On 7/8/2021 at 5:05 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

Our children are legally incapable of making their own decisions but that doesn't mean that they're incapable of making a decision about contraception. In fact, isn't it the case that minors are allowed to get contraception without their parents' permission in some states? 

 

Currently all states. 23 states plus DC explicitly state it, another dozen or so have easily met requirements, but Supreme Court rulings make these statements unneccesary, and make opposing statements useless. 

 

16 hours ago, SKL said:

I agree that the ability to provide informed consent to a medical procedure is different from the ability to consent to sex.  And that there are different ethics involved in having another person control that consent.

<snip>

To add another dimension - one thing my friend has mentioned is that the daughter doesn't come across as cognitively impaired, unless you know her a bit.  She's "normal-looking," friendly and outgoing, and very open to suggestion.  Mom worries that others might think she understands more than she actually does, and that she's "consenting" when she actually isn't.

I really like your first two sentences. 

And the last part - yeah, that has to be hard on mom to worry about. A good number of cognitively impaired people don't come across that way in casual social settings, particularly gatherings of young people not inclined to have heavy conversations to begin with, lol. 

On 7/8/2021 at 2:27 PM, Murphy101 said:

 

Why would it be okay to do things to CIs that it is not okay to do to criminals? 

 

I've never heard anyone use the term CIs before, is that an actual thing? Regional? 

[Janeway]

I think there are cases where it is for the best, but having it legal leaves for the potential abuse of it. I, personally, would like to see people who have multiple children by multiple people and don’t take care of them or are convicted child abusers be sterilized. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Janeway

[Ottakee]

6 hours ago, katilac said:

Most of them do have assistance and supervision to help them manage day to day life. That doesn't equal never being left alone long enough to have sex. 

 

 

 

Actually, lots of peope are in favor of forcibly sterilizing abusive parents. Lose parental rights to multiple children due to abuse or intentional neglect? I'd probably be okay with it, or at minimum something like 3 years of forced birth control for every kid you abused. Murder a child? Sure, forcibly sterilize them, I'm down with that.

To the first part: what extra body parts are commonly left in place? I honestly cannot think of any. Extra fingers and toes are fairly common and generally removed within a few months. Maybe a really small vestigal tail? Anything else? 

To the last part: not wanting someone to marry because they aren't capable of raising kids is treating them as less deserving of equal human status, imo. It's very unfortunate that the language of being children or like children persists,  because that naturally leads to some people thinking that, if children should never have sex or get married, then cognitively impaired adults should never have sex or get married, but they are fundamentally different situations. Not reaching a specific intellectual level does not automatically render a person forever a child. 

Plus, of course, it is well nigh impossible to supervise an adult so closely that they never have the chance to have sex. I mean, it doesn't have to take long, lol. 

It's a terrible dilemma for anyone with guardianship of a male, because long-term birth control is not an option. If a parent makes a thoughtful decision based on the information available, that's all we can ask. 

Sterilization does not render sexual organs into useless body parts. 

I agree with just about everything in this post, and certainly as a society we should rebuild the system, but parents have to make decisions based on what's happening with their own kid, right now. On an individual basis, I would never tell a parent that a greater likelihood of abuse is not a reason to put their dd on birth control. 

Currently all states. 23 states plus DC explicitly state it, another dozen or so have easily met requirements, but Supreme Court rulings make these statements unneccesary, and make opposing statements useless. 

 

I really like your first two sentences. 

And the last part - yeah, that has to be hard on mom to worry about. A good number of cognitively impaired people don't come across that way in casual social settings, particularly gatherings of young people not inclined to have heavy conversations to begin with, lol. 

I've never heard anyone use the term CIs before, is that an actual thing? Regional? 

CI stands for cognitive impairment.....it is an older term.  Many now use intellectual disability

[katilac]

9 hours ago, Ottakee said:

CI stands for cognitive impairment.....it is an older term.  Many now use intellectual disability

I do know what it stands for, I've just never heard someone use it as a noun vs an adjective ('should we do something to CIs that we wouldn't do to someone else' << I've never heard it used this way before this thread)

Calling someone a CI sends my brain immediately to confidential informant . . . 

[annandatje]

On 7/6/2021 at 3:37 PM, DeainUSA said:

When is it okay?

My husband and I oversee the care of intellectually disabled sibling who lived with us for several years after relatively early and unexpected death of his surviving parent before we found suitable placement in supervised housing.  His IQ is in the 60-70 range.  I will keep it short:  I believe it is a reasonable choice given the circumstances and, that is about all I can say without invading his privacy.