Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Having Children - a Legal Issue

MSM
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 11:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was wondering, if it should be legal or illegal for some people to have children, depending on the parent's factors, factors like:
- Economical Resources
- Mental Health
- Education
- Maturity
- Transmittable Disease
, and others that I might not be mentioning.

About the factors, it would be easy to say: "I would not approve that people without economical resources to even sustain themselves, be capable of having children", However what about people that have the necessary economical resources but both, or even one of the parents has bad mental health, or a disease like HIV, that may be transmitted.

On the other hand, I was wondering, if also, there should be a place where people can be actually trained to be parents, where they can obtain their permission to have children. What should it include? I was considering this:
- Psychoanalysis of both parents
- An Analysis to check if they have transmittable diseases
- Preliminary Interview
(if they can afford to have or not children)

My position about this is that, I actually believe that having children should be taken more seriously, many people may not be aware that they may not be capable of raising a son or daughter. Also, plenty of them has unwanted children, at young age, and I believe that a solution for that, if it already happened, should be to make the couple pass this "school for parents" or, give the child in adoption, to someone that has passed.

This would help create a better prepared society, reduced overpopulation from all around the world, and make people more responsible and sensitive towards the human life.

P.S. I'm sorry for my bad English
MSM
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 10:05:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 10:45:30 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
What about "accidents"

In the case of people having an unwanted child, like I said, they would have to pass this kind of school for parents I'm proposing, or they would have to give him/her child in adoption to a couple who has passed, until the original couple passes. They would, as well, have to pay a huge fine.
MSM
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 9:30:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 9:17:09 AM, drafterman wrote:
The cost of implementing and enforcing any such policy far out weight any potential benefit.

Then let's talk about the benefits:

- Children with far more resources to become better adults, not only monetary resources, but resources such as parents which can actually make them better people, needy for society. Parents that train them in values.
- Kids that will not suffer, because of bad parents or bad parenting; and would not pass on the suffering to other people.
- A radical decrease in the world's population, leading to an increase to countries' resources, which leads to a potential end to poverty.
- It, as well, reduce poverty because people without resources wouldn't have children (thing they actually do), and it would cut the chain that leads to more poor people.
- A society with a healthier mind, less overall conflict, a peaceful society.

In short, the world as we know, would change from: repairing the already twisted society, to: preventing future generations to be twisted. We would make an exchange between quantity and quality, leading to a society of high quality.

So, I answer your question with another one, what is the cost of peace?
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 11:25:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 11:50:46 PM, MSM wrote:
I was wondering, if it should be legal or illegal for some people to have children, depending on the parent's factors, factors like:
- Economical Resources
- Mental Health
- Education
- Maturity
- Transmittable Disease
, and others that I might not be mentioning.

About the factors, it would be easy to say: "I would not approve that people without economical resources to even sustain themselves, be capable of having children", However what about people that have the necessary economical resources but both, or even one of the parents has bad mental health, or a disease like HIV, that may be transmitted.

On the other hand, I was wondering, if also, there should be a place where people can be actually trained to be parents, where they can obtain their permission to have children. What should it include? I was considering this:
- Psychoanalysis of both parents
- An Analysis to check if they have transmittable diseases
- Preliminary Interview
(if they can afford to have or not children)

My position about this is that, I actually believe that having children should be taken more seriously, many people may not be aware that they may not be capable of raising a son or daughter. Also, plenty of them has unwanted children, at young age, and I believe that a solution for that, if it already happened, should be to make the couple pass this "school for parents" or, give the child in adoption, to someone that has passed.

This would help create a better prepared society, reduced overpopulation from all around the world, and make people more responsible and sensitive towards the human life.

P.S. I'm sorry for my bad English

I'll address each of the factors you listed, then give my refutation of your views along with my overall opinion.

Response to Factors

With mental health it really depends on if the symptoms will adversely affect parenting. However if people can control their mental complications with medication then it shouldn't be a problem.

For education I'm assuming you mean their amount of knowledge with handling children. If so then that isn't logical sense they haven't had children of their own yet. If your speaking of education in a sense of its correlation to the amount of household income, then I hope you realize that people can get profitable jobs without schooling.

Why should maturity be a relevant factor. In my opinion if the individuals can make a decision to spread their legs without protection then they should be responsible for the outcome. Meaning they take on full maturity at that point in my eyes. I do realize that some people will remain immature after having a child but there are other options rather than preventing them from having a child altogether. Moreover, hopefully the child would help the maturation process.

With transmittable diseases there are other options in which couples can still have a child without natural conception (Since I think most transmittable diseases are imposed on the baby as it exits the mother). For example they could find someone to have their baby for them.

Refutation

I do realize that their are many parents in the world who definitely shouldn't have a child, but there isn't a right way to raise a child. There may be an ideal guideline but every child just simply isn't the same.

Now I'd like to address your conclusions about the implication of a parenting school. What do you mean by it would create a more prepared society, in what ways and how? Furthermore, maybe it would reduce overpopulation if enforced, but their will always be lawbreakers. And in this case what would the punishment be? to kill the offspring, I hope not. Again what do mean it would make people more sensitive towards human life, in what ways and how.

Overall Opinion

There really isn't a viable solution to this problem because any law imposed will always be broken. All we can do is hope that people will make the right decisions when they decide to have a child.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 6:15:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 9:30:27 PM, MSM wrote:
At 9/14/2013 9:17:09 AM, drafterman wrote:
The cost of implementing and enforcing any such policy far out weight any potential benefit.

Then let's talk about the benefits:

- Children with far more resources to become better adults, not only monetary resources, but resources such as parents which can actually make them better people, needy for society. Parents that train them in values.
- Kids that will not suffer, because of bad parents or bad parenting; and would not pass on the suffering to other people.
- A radical decrease in the world's population, leading to an increase to countries' resources, which leads to a potential end to poverty.
- It, as well, reduce poverty because people without resources wouldn't have children (thing they actually do), and it would cut the chain that leads to more poor people.
- A society with a healthier mind, less overall conflict, a peaceful society.

In short, the world as we know, would change from: repairing the already twisted society, to: preventing future generations to be twisted. We would make an exchange between quantity and quality, leading to a society of high quality.

So, I answer your question with another one, what is the cost of peace?

Genocide.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 6:49:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 9:30:27 PM, MSM wrote:
At 9/14/2013 9:17:09 AM, drafterman wrote:
The cost of implementing and enforcing any such policy far out weight any potential benefit.

Then let's talk about the benefits:

- Children with far more resources to become better adults, not only monetary resources, but resources such as parents which can actually make them better people, needy for society. Parents that train them in values.
- Kids that will not suffer, because of bad parents or bad parenting; and would not pass on the suffering to other people.
- A radical decrease in the world's population, leading to an increase to countries' resources, which leads to a potential end to poverty.
- It, as well, reduce poverty because people without resources wouldn't have children (thing they actually do), and it would cut the chain that leads to more poor people.
- A society with a healthier mind, less overall conflict, a peaceful society.

In short, the world as we know, would change from: repairing the already twisted society, to: preventing future generations to be twisted. We would make an exchange between quantity and quality, leading to a society of high quality.

So, I answer your question with another one, what is the cost of peace?

I like where you're going with this. I don't have an opinion on the above yet, but I do think the overall gist is significant, and that the benefits may outweigh the costs.

One problem I can foresee is that it would heavily discourage childbearing, in a society that is having problems with just replacement births.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 10:05:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe "control" to be relative. In the end, the government does have some sort of minimal control over just about any and every aspect of our lives, to include the air we breathe, the land over which we walk, and the water we drink and have access to. The question here IMHO is "how much control is appropriate"?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 1:55:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 10:05:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe "control" to be relative. In the end, the government does have some sort of minimal control over just about any and every aspect of our lives, to include the air we breathe, the land over which we walk, and the water we drink and have access to. The question here IMHO is "how much control is appropriate"?

This control is tempered, ostensibly, by the democratic process, a process which would be negated once the government can decide the demographics of future generations.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 2:12:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 1:55:54 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/15/2013 10:05:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe "control" to be relative. In the end, the government does have some sort of minimal control over just about any and every aspect of our lives, to include the air we breathe, the land over which we walk, and the water we drink and have access to. The question here IMHO is "how much control is appropriate"?

This control is tempered, ostensibly, by the democratic process, a process which would be negated once the government can decide the demographics of future generations.

That doesn't make sense. There are many factors that decide the demographics of future generations. I don't understand how this one factor would negate the democratic process while others do not.

Now, if you said that somehow, the GOP or Hillary Clinton was able to say "look, we don't want your kind of politics to be breeding anymore", then sure, I'll buy your argument. But short that, no.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 2:39:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 2:12:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/15/2013 1:55:54 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/15/2013 10:05:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe "control" to be relative. In the end, the government does have some sort of minimal control over just about any and every aspect of our lives, to include the air we breathe, the land over which we walk, and the water we drink and have access to. The question here IMHO is "how much control is appropriate"?

This control is tempered, ostensibly, by the democratic process, a process which would be negated once the government can decide the demographics of future generations.

That doesn't make sense. There are many factors that decide the demographics of future generations. I don't understand how this one factor would negate the democratic process while others do not.

Now, if you said that somehow, the GOP or Hillary Clinton was able to say "look, we don't want your kind of politics to be breeding anymore", then sure, I'll buy your argument. But short that, no.

What do you mean "somehow?" That's the proposal: to explicitly and specifically give them the ability to say and do that. And, guess what? You disagree, you don't get to breed. While political ideologies can gross familial bonds, most of them are taught,generation by generation.

And what of people that don't comply? State enforced abortions?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 2:41:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 2:39:26 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/15/2013 2:12:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/15/2013 1:55:54 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/15/2013 10:05:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe "control" to be relative. In the end, the government does have some sort of minimal control over just about any and every aspect of our lives, to include the air we breathe, the land over which we walk, and the water we drink and have access to. The question here IMHO is "how much control is appropriate"?

This control is tempered, ostensibly, by the democratic process, a process which would be negated once the government can decide the demographics of future generations.

That doesn't make sense. There are many factors that decide the demographics of future generations. I don't understand how this one factor would negate the democratic process while others do not.

Now, if you said that somehow, the GOP or Hillary Clinton was able to say "look, we don't want your kind of politics to be breeding anymore", then sure, I'll buy your argument. But short that, no.

What do you mean "somehow?" That's the proposal: to explicitly and specifically give them the ability to say and do that. And, guess what? You disagree, you don't get to breed. While political ideologies can gross familial bonds, most of them are taught,generation by generation.

And what of people that don't comply? State enforced abortions?

Interesting. I don't see the issues in the OP in a partisan light, but I suppose if someone did, then you'd have a point.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
MSM
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 11:08:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 11:25:30 PM, Disquisition wrote:

I'll address each of the factors you listed, then give my refutation of your views along with my overall opinion.



Response to Factors

With mental health it really depends on if the symptoms will adversely affect parenting. However if people can control their mental complications with medication then it shouldn't be a problem.

For education I'm assuming you mean their amount of knowledge with handling children. If so then that isn't logical sense they haven't had children of their own yet. If your speaking of education in a sense of its correlation to the amount of household income, then I hope you realize that people can get profitable jobs without schooling.

Why should maturity be a relevant factor. In my opinion if the individuals can make a decision to spread their legs without protection then they should be responsible for the outcome. Meaning they take on full maturity at that point in my eyes. I do realize that some people will remain immature after having a child but there are other options rather than preventing them from having a child altogether. Moreover, hopefully the child would help the maturation process.

With transmittable diseases there are other options in which couples can still have a child without natural conception (Since I think most transmittable diseases are imposed on the baby as it exits the mother). For example they could find someone to have their baby for them.


Refutation

I do realize that their are many parents in the world who definitely shouldn't have a child, but there isn't a right way to raise a child. There may be an ideal guideline but every child just simply isn't the same.

Now I'd like to address your conclusions about the implication of a parenting school. What do you mean by it would create a more prepared society, in what ways and how? Furthermore, maybe it would reduce overpopulation if enforced, but their will always be lawbreakers. And in this case what would the punishment be? to kill the offspring, I hope not. Again what do mean it would make people more sensitive towards human life, in what ways and how.


Overall Opinion

There really isn't a viable solution to this problem because any law imposed will always be broken. All we can do is hope that people will make the right decisions when they decide to have a child.

I apologize I didn't explain the considered factors, I will make a further explanation on what I believe in each one of them.

By mental health, I meant if one or both potential parents don't have mental issues from aggressive behaviour, incapability of controlling emotions, negative addictions to psychosis. On the other hand I don't mean that only mentally perfect people should be able to have children (because they don't exist) however it would be alright for people who can pass at least some sort of psychoanalysis designed for parenting. If this would not cut out every case of bad parenting, it would definitely reduce them in a large percentage.

For education, I didn't mean parenting education, instead I meant basic education, I didn't mention schools nor profitable jobs, I believe that with enough economical resources for satisfying all the family's needs it's alright to have child, one does not need to be rich. Back to the topic, potential parents need basic education (school education or self education), if not, what are they going to teach their children, or how would they help them?, they need to be their guides.

In regard to maturity, you make a good point saying that although people have kids they're still immature. Then, I believe it not only is important but is a crucial factor. Mature, open minded parents will make better decisions with respect to the child, and will make him/her learn from that mature behaviour, since they would be people that would be more time with them. However, immature parents, that we can not ensure that will mature, will only teach their immature ways, leading to self-centered, lying, ungrateful, aggressive, children, eventually to a similar society. This implies desicions such as: what are you going to feed your child, are you gonna take him to McDonalds every day? every weekend? would you make it a prize for him? for him to think it is good? If a parent don't even know what is good or bad for him/her, what is the child gonna learn from them?

Regarding transmittable diseases, I didn't say that people with diseased wouldn't have kids, but only to find other way to have them, like adopting or what you are proposing.

At last, about the factors, I have considered two more:
- Amount of Time available for the child (If they're not going to have time for him/her, how are they gonna raise it?, and I don't believe in other people raising the child, then what would the reason be, for having a child?
- Social Responsibility, the parents should practice some volunteering or social responsibility in order to sensitize the child, make him open his eyes about the world, and for the child to find happiness in doing good. This would also help the maturation process for the child as well as to the parents.

About the conclusions:

The punishment, would just be a large fine, and having to pass this parenting school, if they don't they would have to give their child in adoption. Also, there wouldn't be an "ideal guideline" as such as you present, for this parenting school, I just propose the following:
- Psychoanalysis, which I believe is the most important.
- People testing their maturity level through decisions the potential parents will have to take.
- Since the child isn't aware of its own existence, parents would've to take decisions for them, so, they will be frequently asked, what would they want to do with their child, what activities are they gonna practice with him, which sports, instruments, between others, are they gonna choose for their children, until him/her realize that he/she still wants to do it or not.
*This "school" will just be a training for their maturity, it would have nothing to do with things such as: how to feed a baby, how to hold one, how to clean one. (They should know this however, and if they do not, they should go somewhere they can learn it).

Now, how would this create a better prepared society and people more sensitive towards the human life? Sensitive towards it, because it would be more difficult for people to have kids, they would actually have to want it, to have them, not many people would have children, so having a child would be a more unusual event. After seeing what this school for parents demand (economical resources, time, mental health, between others) they would actually believe having kids is a serious issue. Also, I believe it would create a better society, in the way that, only mentally healthy people would have kids, so, there is a much higher probability that the kids would be mentally healthy, leading to a mentally healthy society, which can see reality better and take better decisions for the world. Finally, regarding the overpopulation problem, it was just a consequence, not a reason.

If this still isn't a viable solution, why isn't it? and what would you propose for bad parenting. Also, yes, I believe that the mass population would disapprove, not because it isn't beneficial, but because they'd be afraid they can't have kids. Population including the government, also saying that they'd be afraid of not satisfying the factors I talked about before.

P.S. sorry for the long post
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 7:43:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 1:49:41 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm thinking of a word.

It's starts with a "E" and involves regulating who has access to creating offspring.

Agree that enforceability (I know, not the word you were thinking...=) would be the Achilles' Heel of this plan.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
MSM
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 10:41:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 7:43:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/16/2013 1:49:41 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm thinking of a word.

It's starts with a "E" and involves regulating who has access to creating offspring.

Agree that enforceability (I know, not the word you were thinking...=) would be the Achilles' Heel of this plan.

Why would enforceabilty be a flaw to this plan? I don't quite understand. Also, what would the word that starts with E be?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 10:49:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 10:41:18 AM, MSM wrote:
At 9/16/2013 7:43:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/16/2013 1:49:41 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm thinking of a word.

It's starts with a "E" and involves regulating who has access to creating offspring.

Agree that enforceability (I know, not the word you were thinking...=) would be the Achilles' Heel of this plan.

Why would enforceabilty be a flaw to this plan? I don't quite understand. Also, what would the word that starts with E be?

Because what if someone went ahead and had a child anyway against the edicts of the state? Does the state force an abortion?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 10:50:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Eugenics
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
MSM
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 3:31:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 10:49:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/16/2013 10:41:18 AM, MSM wrote:
At 9/16/2013 7:43:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/16/2013 1:49:41 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm thinking of a word.

It's starts with a "E" and involves regulating who has access to creating offspring.

Agree that enforceability (I know, not the word you were thinking...=) would be the Achilles' Heel of this plan.

Why would enforceabilty be a flaw to this plan? I don't quite understand. Also, what would the word that starts with E be?

Because what if someone went ahead and had a child anyway against the edicts of the state? Does the state force an abortion?

If someone does, then the child would be given in adoption to someone qualified, also the couple would've to pay a large fine. In order to have the child back they'd had to pass the maturity tests. No abortions will be forced. However if the mass population does go against the law (thing I fear, and consider most possible), it would be quite hard to keep with it, and I, yet, don't find a possible solution for that.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 4:00:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 3:31:46 PM, MSM wrote:
At 9/16/2013 10:49:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/16/2013 10:41:18 AM, MSM wrote:
At 9/16/2013 7:43:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/16/2013 1:49:41 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm thinking of a word.

It's starts with a "E" and involves regulating who has access to creating offspring.

Agree that enforceability (I know, not the word you were thinking...=) would be the Achilles' Heel of this plan.

Why would enforceabilty be a flaw to this plan? I don't quite understand. Also, what would the word that starts with E be?

Because what if someone went ahead and had a child anyway against the edicts of the state? Does the state force an abortion?

If someone does, then the child would be given in adoption to someone qualified, also the couple would've to pay a large fine. In order to have the child back they'd had to pass the maturity tests. No abortions will be forced. However if the mass population does go against the law (thing I fear, and consider most possible), it would be quite hard to keep with it, and I, yet, don't find a possible solution for that.

1) What if there were no qualified couples in "backlog"?
2) Sounds like we're in agreement that there may be some problems.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 5:55:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 9:30:27 PM, MSM wrote:
So, I answer your question with another one, what is the cost of peace?

Said every totalitarian dictator/mass murderer, ever.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MSM
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 6:34:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 4:00:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/16/2013 3:31:46 PM, MSM wrote:
At 9/16/2013 10:49:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/16/2013 10:41:18 AM, MSM wrote:
At 9/16/2013 7:43:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/16/2013 1:49:41 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm thinking of a word.

It's starts with a "E" and involves regulating who has access to creating offspring.

Agree that enforceability (I know, not the word you were thinking...=) would be the Achilles' Heel of this plan.

Why would enforceabilty be a flaw to this plan? I don't quite understand. Also, what would the word that starts with E be?

Because what if someone went ahead and had a child anyway against the edicts of the state? Does the state force an abortion?

If someone does, then the child would be given in adoption to someone qualified, also the couple would've to pay a large fine. In order to have the child back they'd had to pass the maturity tests. No abortions will be forced. However if the mass population does go against the law (thing I fear, and consider most possible), it would be quite hard to keep with it, and I, yet, don't find a possible solution for that.

1) What if there were no qualified couples in "backlog"?
2) Sounds like we're in agreement that there may be some problems.

I just thought a couple of things, first of all, there would be places, most similar to an orphanages, but only that qualified people can adopt, so if there is no backlog couples, children are going to be sent there. Also, in order to promote the qualification among people and also the adoption, I propose that the State or government help economically, qualificated people that adopt childs. Regarding the other topic, there will always be problems when talking about change, mostly because people are going to be afraid of it, however I believe that there is always a way to do something, including this.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 12:44:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 11:08:57 PM, MSM wrote:
I apologize I didn't explain the considered factors, I will make a further explanation on what I believe in each one of them.

By mental health, I meant if one or both potential parents don't have mental issues from aggressive behaviour, incapability of controlling emotions, negative addictions to psychosis. On the other hand I don't mean that only mentally perfect people should be able to have children (because they don't exist) however it would be alright for people who can pass at least some sort of psychoanalysis designed for parenting. If this would not cut out every case of bad parenting, it would definitely reduce them in a large percentage.

Interesting, but as I stated before, children have innate differences that will require different types of parenting. This psychoanalysis test you propose will be subjectively pre-assuming that all children act the same way and that there is an ideal parenting method. Although I do see the benefit of a test constructed by psychologists, it shouldn't completely prevent parents from having children on a pass/fail basis. Could you elaborate on how this test would be constructed and what the results would entail.

For education, I didn't mean parenting education, instead I meant basic education, I didn't mention schools nor profitable jobs, I believe that with enough economical resources for satisfying all the family's needs it's alright to have child, one does not need to be rich. Back to the topic, potential parents need basic education (school education or self education), if not, what are they going to teach their children, or how would they help them?, they need to be their guides.

I do agree that parents should have some form of education but you need to define what "help" means because that could change in different circumstances. Moreover, most, if not all parents will teach their children something but whether it's right or wrong is subjective or I guess in this case must be consistent with your psychoanalysis test. We also shouldn't exclude income from the conversation since children need to have a home (meaning the proper environment) to even get such "help/ teaching," which requires money or some form of income.

In regard to maturity, you make a good point saying that although people have kids they're still immature. Then, I believe it not only is important but is a crucial factor. Mature, open minded parents will make better decisions with respect to the child, and will make him/her learn from that mature behaviour, since they would be people that would be more time with them. However, immature parents, that we can not ensure that will mature, will only teach their immature ways, leading to self-centered, lying, ungrateful, aggressive, children, eventually to a similar society. This implies desicions such as: what are you going to feed your child, are you gonna take him to McDonalds every day? every weekend? would you make it a prize for him? for him to think it is good? If a parent don't even know what is good or bad for him/her, what is the child gonna learn from them?

It seems as though your saying that mature parents will teach their children to act like respected members in society, but you do realize that mature parenting =/= teaching children proper behavior all the time. There are mature parents who will still teach their children all of those negative adjectives listed. And frankly people are just inclined to act in their own self-interest regardless of what the parents teach or tell them, so having immature parents isn't a societal problem.

Regarding transmittable diseases, I didn't say that people with diseased wouldn't have kids, but only to find other way to have them, like adopting or what you are proposing.

Alright that clears it up, but your original post implied denying parents the right to conceive if they had a transmittable disease. And really how is this a relevant factor at all, are you implying that parents with transmittable diseases shouldn't legally have a child if they didn't want to adopt or have a carrier (baby carrier)?

At last, about the factors, I have considered two more:
- Amount of Time available for the child (If they're not going to have time for him/her, how are they gonna raise it?, and I don't believe in other people raising the child, then what would the reason be, for having a child?

Well that factor is easily resolvable with daycares and relatives who you trust your children with. If time is really an issue that prevents parent-child interaction then oh well, there are alternative actions. Preventing a child from being born due to the parents not having enough time for interaction, isn't really logical if they can still adequately provide for the child's basic needs.

- Social Responsibility, the parents should practice some volunteering or social responsibility in order to sensitize the child, make him open his eyes about the world, and for the child to find happiness in doing good. This would also help the maturation process for the child as well as to the parents.

Sure, a child needs to be exposed to the world but it should be at age appropriate rates

I'll respond to the rest of your post later (i.e. the portion below).

About the conclusions:

The punishment, would just be a large fine, and having to pass this parenting school, if they don't they would have to give their child in adoption. Also, there wouldn't be an "ideal guideline" as such as you present, for this parenting school, I just propose the following:
- Psychoanalysis, which I believe is the most important.
- People testing their maturity level through decisions the potential parents will have to take.
- Since the child isn't aware of its own existence, parents would've to take decisions for them, so, they will be frequently asked, what would they want to do with their child, what activities are they gonna practice with him, which sports, instruments, between others, are they gonna choose for their children, until him/her realize that he/she still wants to do it or not.
*This "school" will just be a training for their maturity, it would have nothing to do with things such as: how to feed a baby, how to hold one, how to clean one. (They should know this however, and if they do not, they should go somewhere they can learn it).

Now, how would this create a better prepared society and people more sensitive towards the human life? Sensitive towards it, because it would be more difficult for people to have kids, they would actually have to want it, to have them, not many people would have children, so having a child would be a more unusual event. After seeing what this school for parents demand (economical resources, time, mental health, between others) they would actually believe having kids is a serious issue. Also, I believe it would create a better society, in the way that, only mentally healthy people would have kids, so, there is a much higher probability that the kids would be mentally healthy, leading to a mentally healthy society, which can see reality better and take better decisions for the world. Finally, regarding the overpopulation problem, it was just a consequence, not a reason.

If this still isn't a viable solution, why isn't it? and what would you propose for bad parenting. Also, yes, I believe that the mass population would disapprove, not because it isn't beneficial, but because they'd be afraid they can't have kids. Population including the government, also saying that they'd be afraid of not satisfying the factors I talked about before.

P.S. sorry for the long post
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 1:06:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 9:30:27 PM, MSM wrote:
At 9/14/2013 9:17:09 AM, drafterman wrote:
The cost of implementing and enforcing any such policy far out weight any potential benefit.

Then let's talk about the benefits:

- Children with far more resources to become better adults, not only monetary resources, but resources such as parents which can actually make them better people, needy for society. Parents that train them in values.
- Kids that will not suffer, because of bad parents or bad parenting; and would not pass on the suffering to other people.
- A radical decrease in the world's population, leading to an increase to countries' resources, which leads to a potential end to poverty.
- It, as well, reduce poverty because people without resources wouldn't have children (thing they actually do), and it would cut the chain that leads to more poor people.
- A society with a healthier mind, less overall conflict, a peaceful society.

In short, the world as we know, would change from: repairing the already twisted society, to: preventing future generations to be twisted. We would make an exchange between quantity and quality, leading to a society of high quality.

So, I answer your question with another one, what is the cost of peace?

The Fool: I think Hitler beat you to Eugenics first.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 12:10:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/15/2013 11:08:57 PM, MSM wrote:
About the conclusions:

The punishment, would just be a large fine, and having to pass this parenting school, if they don't they would have to give their child in adoption. Also, there wouldn't be an "ideal guideline" as such as you present, for this parenting school, I just propose the following:
- Psychoanalysis, which I believe is the most important.
- People testing their maturity level through decisions the potential parents will have to take.
- Since the child isn't aware of its own existence, parents would've to take decisions for them, so, they will be frequently asked, what would they want to do with their child, what activities are they gonna practice with him, which sports, instruments, between others, are they gonna choose for their children, until him/her realize that he/she still wants to do it or not.
*This "school" will just be a training for their maturity, it would have nothing to do with things such as: how to feed a baby, how to hold one, how to clean one. (They should know this however, and if they do not, they should go somewhere they can learn it).

As I stated in my other post, any so called psychoanalysis test would be making subjective pre-assumptions and parental maturity =/= better child.

Now, how would this create a better prepared society and people more sensitive towards the human life? Sensitive towards it, because it would be more difficult for people to have kids, they would actually have to want it, to have them, not many people would have children, so having a child would be a more unusual event. After seeing what this school for parents demand (economical resources, time, mental health, between others) they would actually believe having kids is a serious issue. Also, I believe it would create a better society, in the way that, only mentally healthy people would have kids, so, there is a much higher probability that the kids would be mentally healthy, leading to a mentally healthy society, which can see reality better and take better decisions for the world. Finally, regarding the overpopulation problem, it was just a consequence, not a reason.

With such stipulations to have a child, yeah it would be an unusual event but it wouldn't create a better society. Your neglecting all the other factors they play into a child's development which have as much weight as good parenting.

If this still isn't a viable solution, why isn't it? and what would you propose for bad parenting. Also, yes, I believe that the mass population would disapprove, not because it isn't beneficial, but because they'd be afraid they can't have kids. Population including the government, also saying that they'd be afraid of not satisfying the factors I talked about before.

There isn't a viable solution for bad parenting because there wouldn't be any feasible way to enforce such laws. Now if a parent is physically abusing a child then yes the authorities should get involved, but the government shouldn't dictate how we need to raise our children. I see it like this, children will have more mental aptitude if they can attend school and they can only attend school if the parents can adequately provide.

So basically:

1) If you want smart kids, then they need schooling.
2) They can only get such schooling with an adequate environment.
3) Such an environment can only be provided by the income of the parents.

Therefore, on average it really all correlates to the income of the parents.