Is it our right to reproduce a child and can/should it be taken from you?

Lord Trollington

Should there any scenario whereby your right to reproduce should be taken from you?

Kids who dont ask to be brought into the world being born into famalies where they are given no chance at a decent life.

Kids born with parents that are Serial reoffenders constantly in and out of jail , alcohol and substance abusers , rapists and murders.

Is it our right to reproduce regardless of how fit of parents we are or whether we can provide any sort of life for the child?

FatherLen

why so serious?................................this is ah








yes anyone can have babies and nobody can stop them. except the chinese.....

wild_cat

After watching a group of 10 year olds break in the back window of a car the other evening I think so.

JohnathanM

Something needs to be done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo

curlzy

Have you been reading Mein Kampf???

smk89

Speaking as a 21 year old a vasectomy now and the reverse later when,if I decide to have kids later would be good.
But yes the would would be better if only the great could procreate, but then who would we feel superior to.

Iwannahurl

Or this classic paper.

"Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon."

Coriolanus

I've given up on my support for a sterilization at birth program and now support the introduction of an agent into the water, the cure for which will be handed out to those passing a basic parenting/genetic fitness test.

In other words, no, you don't have a right to a child and of should be denied to anyone whp can't live up to the responsibility.

Sanjuro

How exactly are you supposed to police the whole reproduction scenario you propose?

bonerm

curlzy wrote: »

Have you been reading Mein Kampf???

Mein Kampf for some , Action T4 for others.....

CreepingDeath

Nevore wrote: »

I've given up on my support for a sterilization at birth program and now support the introduction of an agent into the water

That's what the flouride is for.

Coriolanus

bonerm wrote: »

Mein Kampf for some , Action T4 for others.....

What's action t4?

scientific1982

Some people shouldnt have kids. Most of the problems in our society are due to ****ty parenting. If you're not going to raise your kids properly, then close your fvcking legs.

Coriolanus

CreepingDeath wrote: »

That's what the flouride is for.

It's not working. Anyway, I thought it was something else. Wasn't the us army putting something in the barrwcks water for years?

Sanjuro wrote: »

How exactly are you supposed to police the whole reproduction scenario you propose?

We'll need a secret police force to make sure everyone is drinking enough water to make them infertile and to crack down on the inevitable black market in the cure. They'll need unlimited powers of search and seizure too, to find and confiscate any illegally conceived children. I like brown shirts for the uniform, what do you think?

Sanjuro

scientific1982 wrote: »

Some people shouldnt have kids. Most of the problems in our society are due to ****ty parenting. If you're not going to raise your kids properly, then close your fvcking legs.

I don't think the thought of kids is the main motivation for a lot of legs being spread.

scientific1982

Sanjuro wrote: »

I don't think the thought of kids is the main motivation for a lot of legs being spread.

Ah but it is subconsciously.

reallyrose

So, how will this decision be reached?

Let's say we start off with only allowing those with a good job to reproduce. Seems sensible, right? If you have a job, you can provide for your child.
Hmm, but then the mother will be off work for a good while after the birth, and maternity benefits don't really cover all the expenses associated with a new baby...

Ok, you need to have a decent amount of savings and a good job in order to be allowed to breed.

Perfect.

Wait, how about health? Doesn't matter how much money you have, no point in having an unhealthy baby...

Right, only the healthy can have children. Healthy people with a good job and savings.

See, it seems like a good idea. Only allow those who can take care of a child to have children but how could it be done?

Should there be compulsary abortions for 'unsuitable' women who become pregnant? Or just tie everyones tubes and you can apply to have them untied?

Penn

Everyone should be allowed to have children. Just not everyone should be allowed to be parents

FreudianSlippers

Yes, children can be taken away and often are.

As for actually getting pregnant and having a child, I believe you should have to get a licence before you have a baby. You should be means tested and if you don't get the licence, you aren't prevented from having a baby but you cannot receive any social welfare benefits for said child until such a time that you get the licence... and there's no back-dating either!

Dacelonid

Nevore wrote: »

What's action t4?

http://tinyurl.com/6kd8l4o

iPlop

OisinT wrote: »

Yes, children can be taken away and often are.

As for actually getting pregnant and having a child, I believe you should have to get a licence before you have a baby. You should be means tested and if you don't get the licence, you aren't prevented from having a baby but you cannot receive any social welfare benefits for said child until such a time that you get the licence... and there's no back-dating either!

I totally agree with this.And also is you don't have any means of supporting the child you don't get a licence either.There are certain groups in society that need to be sterilized as well

smk89

reallyrose wrote: »

So, how will this decision be reached?

Let's say we start off with only allowing those with a good job to reproduce. Seems sensible, right? If you have a job, you can provide for your child.
Hmm, but then the mother will be off work for a good while after the birth, and maternity benefits don't really cover all the expenses associated with a new baby...

Ok, you need to have a decent amount of savings and a good job in order to be allowed to breed.

Perfect.

Wait, how about health? Doesn't matter how much money you have, no point in having an unhealthy baby...

Right, only the healthy can have children. Healthy people with a good job and savings.

See, it seems like a good idea. Only allow those who can take care of a child to have children but how could it be done?

Should there be compulsary abortions for 'unsuitable' women who become pregnant? Or just tie everyones tubes and you can apply to have them untied?

The acid test should be have you ever been on the Jeremy Kyle show?
If yes, your child is taken away... and your shot

ebixa82

The section of society I genuinely feel should not be allowed reproduce are drug addicts. Yes everyone should be entitled to be parents but nobody should be allowed give birth to a drug addicted child as a result of their parents drug abuse.

This could be most easily achieved by offering the parents some (addictive drug of choice) for a sterilisation jab/implant etc. Highly unethical but there you go...

hondasam

OisinT wrote: »

Yes, children can be taken away and often are.

As for actually getting pregnant and having a child, I believe you should have to get a licence before you have a baby. You should be means tested and if you don't get the licence, you aren't prevented from having a baby but you cannot receive any social welfare benefits for said child until such a time that you get the licence... and there's no back-dating either!

That like saying only poor people make bad parents. children from wealthy parents often turn out bad also.

would you make wealthy people apply for this licence also ?

curlzy

scientific1982 wrote: »

Some people shouldnt have kids. Most of the problems in our society are due to ****ty parenting. If you're not going to raise your kids properly, then close your fvcking legs.

Are you trying to say only women are ****ty parents?:mad: Why is it not up to men to raise their kids properly?

iPlop

hondasam wrote: »

That like saying only poor people make bad parents. children from wealthy parents often turn out bad also.

would you make wealthy people apply for this licence also ?

Of course ,it should be a standard test to see if you can afford to support the child ,make sure you're not a drug addict etc...If you don't have the ability to do so ,you shouldn't be allowed or you can have a child but your on your own ,no benefits.Why should the tax payer pick up the tab?

hondasam

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Of course ,it should be a standard test to see if you can afford to support the child ,make sure you're not a drug addict etc...If you don't have the ability to do so ,you shouldn't be allowed or you can have a child but your on your own ,no benefits.Why should the tax payer pick up the tab?

Like I said been wealthy does not make you a good parent. You think every person who wants to be a parent should have a blood test to see if the use drugs.

what happens if you become poor or a drug addict when the child is born ?

TheZohanS

Anyone convicted of child abuse should be permanently sterilised.

mikom

hondasam wrote: »

what happens if you become poor or a drug addict when the child is born ?

You lose your licence and are banned from riding for 2 years.

hondasam

mikom wrote: »

You lose your licence and are banned from riding for 2 years.

excellent but 2 years

iPlop

hondasam wrote: »

Like I said been wealthy does not make you a good parent. You think every person who wants to be a parent should have a blood test to see if the use drugs.

what happens if you become poor or a drug addict when the child is born ?

A small section of people might ,but a test like this could stop people reproducing that really shouln't.It should be part of the school curriculum ,drilled into kids heads from an early age.DO WELL OR DIE ALONE

stevoslice

no need to start sterilising people or repossessing children.
Legalise abortion and remove the right to a free house for single mothers.

dark crystal

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Of course ,it should be a standard test to see if you can afford to support the child ,make sure you're not a drug addict etc...If you don't have the ability to do so ,you shouldn't be allowed or you can have a child but your on your own ,no benefits.Why should the tax payer pick up the tab?

Do you propose that if by some major calamity, a couple get pregnant (it happens the odd time - life ain't perfect) and they don't have 'x' amount of income, the pregnancy should be terminated?

The population needs to reproduce and every country needs a population. Regulating it so that only the financially well off can have children would drastically diminish that population (it's also madness to claim that welathier parents make better parents.)

Of course it would be ideal if all parents could afford to have children independently of all state help, but that's just not viable in all cases. If the government took more initiative in providing state funded childcare for parents, many more would be able to go out to work and pay taxes. There could then be no excuse for those on welfare not to work.

Even China had to review their one-child policy after it transpired that there weren't enough children being produced to replace the increasing ageing population.

dark crystal

thebhoy wrote: »

no need to start sterilising people or repossessing children.
Legalise abortion and remove the right to a free house for single mothers.

Abortion is legal in the U.K - there's no shortage of single mothers there.

If you take away social housing, where will these children be raised? State funded orphanages? Hostels? The streets?

I hope we never see the day where innocent children are forced to live in degredation because their parents couldn't afford a mortgage/private rental acommodation.....

pablomakaveli

ebixa82 wrote: »

The section of society I genuinely feel should not be allowed reproduce are drug addicts. Yes everyone should be entitled to be parents but nobody should be allowed give birth to a drug addicted child as a result of their parents drug abuse.

This could be most easily achieved by offering the parents some (addictive drug of choice) for a sterilisation jab/implant etc. Highly unethical but there you go...

I think there was a group that actually did something like this. They offered addicts money to be sterilised. Im sure someone put the story up in AH a few months ago.

jackie1974

You can't hold a whole nation to ransom because of the shoddy parenting of some. The simple fact is there will always be addiction, poverty, lack of education etc.. and this is where the solution lies more work in these areas, not licencing reproduction. What about the parents that tick all the boxes on the surface but are total sociopaths at home. All that would happen is lower class people would be targeted and deprived of their rights.

This reminds me of the programmes springing up in the UK and USA that pay drug addicts £200 to be sterilised. I really hate this idea, it's exploitation at it's worst, it just keeps addicts in the gutter and gives no incentive whatsoever to get better. Imagine being a teen drug addict, going through rehab and coming to terms with the fact that you sold your womb. It's like saying 'you're a lost cause because you have an addiction' how would the whole concept of rehab work if that is how we behaved. I'm all for temporary birth control, even mandatory birth control with methodone programmes but permanent sterilisation, no.

Seloth

whycliff wrote: »

Should there any scenario whereby your right to reproduce should be taken from you?

Kids who dont ask to be brought into the world being born into famalies where they are given no chance at a decent life.

Kids born with parents that are Serial reoffenders constantly in and out of jail , alcohol and substance abusers , rapists and murders.

Is it our right to reproduce regardless of how fit of parents we are or whether we can provide any sort of life for the child?

There was a case several years back where a couple both serving life wished to have a child but their right to do so was revoked.

pagancornflake

whycliff wrote: »

Should there any scenario whereby your right to reproduce should be taken from you?

Kids who dont ask to be brought into the world being born into famalies where they are given no chance at a decent life.

Not giving a child a decent life is not a requisite to parenthood. The onus falls on that same child to provide their own "decent life" when they reach adulthood, not on the parents to provide it for them.

whycliff wrote: »

Kids born with parents that are Serial reoffenders constantly in and out of jail , alcohol and substance abusers , rapists and murders.

Child protection custody, adoption etc. Measures which are far less draconian imo.

whycliff wrote: »

Is it our right to reproduce regardless of how fit of parents we are or whether we can provide any sort of life for the child?

You are welcome to try and stop me; you will not enjoy it.

carfiosaoorl

Would you honestly want to give the government the power to choose who can and cant have children?:eek:

You cant go around sterilizing people willy nilly on the off chance that they might make crap parents.

Some of the threads on this board seriously make me wonder Our government can barely do the job they are meant to do but ye want to give them complete power over everyones lives:rolleyes:

cynder

Read this and then decide if the government or anyone has the right to decide.

http://fromtheold.com/news/social-workers-steal-young-couples-baby-uk-2010012216439.html

Just one of many.


Social services 'to take baby from teenager deemed too stupid to marry'
A mother-to-be, who was banned from marrying after social workers said she is not intelligent enough, is to have her baby taken away immediately after giving birth.

Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, has been told that she will not be allowed to bring up her own child, who she has already named Ben.

Last month Miss Robertson was prevented from marrying her fiancé Mark McDougall, 25, after council officials claimed that she “did not understand the implications of getting married”.

She has now been warned that she will only be allowed a few hours with her baby, which is due in January, before it is taken into foster care.
After hearing the news, Miss Robertson, of Dunfermline, Fife, who is 26 weeks pregnant, said: “I couldn't believe it. I am so upset – I can't stop crying.”

Mr McDougall, an artist, said he wants to take on full responsibility for his son but claims that he is powerless because he is not married to Miss Robertson.

dark crystal

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think there was a group that actually did something like this. They offered addicts money to be sterilised. Im sure someone put the story up in AH a few months ago.

Yep http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=173082

This is one case, where I would agree with 'forced' long term birth control, not necessarily sterilisation. If there is a clear and imminent danger to the life of the child, both inside and outside the womb because of the decisions of the mother, then I don't see a problem with it.

johnmcdnl

don't children in really bad homes like this get taken in by social welfare?? or at least have social workers going round... ??

Coriolanus

Dacelonid wrote: »

http://tinyurl.com/6kd8l4o

I'm on a mobile but thanks for contributing.

we'llallhavetea_old

great idea, lets just leave our entire lives in the hands of the government. wtf.

My name is URL

It's a bit naive to think that people will stop procreating just because the State refuses to grant them a licence, and incredibly short-sighted to believe that it will solve any social problems.

bnt

The idea I had, years ago, was similar to the "procreation license" idea, but it wouldn't be enforced by taking kids away or anything like that. Both parents must take a parenting training course, sit an exam, and pass it. After passing they would have access to child benefit funds.

If that sounds like I'm saying the unemployed are bad parents ... not really, since good parents would have no problem passing, regardless of employment status. On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that the unemployable are most in need of all kinds of training, and parental training ought to be high on the list of "life skills" they need.

The only thing that worries me is: what do we do with chronic failures? Parents who are unable to pass even non-technical tests, due to e.g. illiteracy or mental incompetence? I'll leave that kind of problem to social science professionals, and I'm not one of those.

FreudianSlippers

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Of course ,it should be a standard test to see if you can afford to support the child ,make sure you're not a drug addict etc...If you don't have the ability to do so ,you shouldn't be allowed or you can have a child but your on your own ,no benefits.Why should the tax payer pick up the tab?

Exactly. The test should be equally administered to everyone.

If you wish to have a child, regardless of socio-economic standing you should apply to get a licence. This process involves many factors, including testing maturity level of the applicants, income, savings, employment, home-ownership, stability in the relationship, drug use/abuse, etc.

With regards to the financial aspects, it does not necessarily disqualify you from having children if you are poorer. They are looking at whether or not you have a job, are in a position to not work or what your employment prospects are.

If you make over a certain amount you don't get child benefit payments, between x and y you get child benefit and if you don't make enough (household) including the benefits you'd be entitled to then you are not granted to licence.

hondasam wrote: »

Like I said been wealthy does not make you a good parent. You think every person who wants to be a parent should have a blood test to see if the use drugs.

what happens if you become poor or a drug addict when the child is born ?

Well obviously you can't control that... the same situation that currently applies would apply. If you are unable to care for your children because of your addictions they are taken away.

cynder

bnt wrote: »

The idea I had, years ago, was similar to the "procreation license" idea, but it wouldn't be enforced by taking kids away or anything like that. Both parents must take a parenting training course, sit an exam, and pass it. After passing they would have access to child benefit funds.

If that sounds like I'm saying the unemployed are bad parents ... not really, since good parents would have no problem passing, regardless of employment status. On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that the unemployable are most in need of all kinds of training, and parental training ought to be high on the list of "life skills" they need.

The only thing that worries me is: what do we do with chronic failures? Parents who are unable to pass even non-technical tests, due to e.g. illiteracy or mental incompetence? I'll leave that kind of problem to social science professionals, and I'm not one of those.

No one knows whats going to happen down the line, how many rich dads have murdered their wives and children?

Just because ones state of mind my be good/bad at time of test doesn't not mean 2 years later (or even 1-18 years later (you dont stop being a parent at 18 its life long)) it would be good/bad.

Having kids makes more people grow up and act responsible. I was 18 when i fell pregnant as with 2 months i had a life insurance policy got. I was also unmarried.

scientific1982

curlzy wrote: »

Are you trying to say only women are ****ty parents?:mad: Why is it not up to men to raise their kids properly?

Yeah. Bitchez be trippin.

PrincessLola

OisinT wrote: »

Yes, children can be taken away and often are.

As for actually getting pregnant and having a child, I believe you should have to get a licence before you have a baby. You should be means tested and if you don't get the licence, you aren't prevented from having a baby but you cannot receive any social welfare benefits for said child until such a time that you get the licence... and there's no back-dating either!

So punish the child for its parents behaviour? Thats sick.

EDIT: unless you mean the child is put in care, then thats ok

thebaldsoprano

whycliff wrote: »

Should there any scenario whereby your right to reproduce should be taken from you?

This was tried in Sweden with people suffering from mental illness, then it was expanded to include people with a low income. There's a good film about it called The New Man by Klaus Haro. Needless to say, it didn't end well and later caused quite a scandal.

If someone wants to get themselves sterilised and there's no coercion involved then that's fair enough, but this guilty until proven innocent approach of punishing parents before they've done anything wrong doesn't seem like a good idea.