reply
It definitely would NOT be right, if we would allow any institution that could be centrally controlled to lay down rules about who can have children under what circumstances, because that would create a biologically selective pressure which would, without any doubt, be much more narrow-minded, short-sighted and probably self-serving for the rule makers than the selective pressures provided by the wide variety of living circumstances that exist for human beings. As we can learn from any human attempt to breed lines of plants or animals, genetic variety dwindles and the overall biological fitness of such breeding lines diminish rapidly. Besides that history knows plenty of examples, where breeding criteria have been imposed unto certain groups in society and I don’t know a single example where this turned out to be beneficial for those groups for more than very few generations. Such breeding efforts always go together with an attempt to perpetuate a certain model of society, which from the perspective of the prevailing Zeitgeist might look appealing but which looks rather strange and misguided once history has moved on to something new.
- Feature
- Like
It definitely would NOT be right, if we would allow any institution that could be centrally controlled to lay down rules about who can have children under what circumstances, because that would create a biologically selective pressure which would, without any doubt, be much more narrow-minded, short-sighted and probably self-serving for the rule makers than the selective pressures provided by the wide variety of living circumstances that exist for human beings. As we can learn from any human attempt to breed lines of plants or animals, genetic variety dwindles and the overall biological fitness of such breeding lines diminish rapidly. Besides that history knows plenty of examples, where breeding criteria have been imposed unto certain groups in society and I don’t know a single example where this turned out to be beneficial for those groups for more than very few generations. Such breeding efforts always go together with an attempt to perpetuate a certain model of society, which from the perspective of the prevailing Zeitgeist might look appealing but which looks rather strange and misguided once history has moved on to something new.
Still, I do see a point in wishing for such an important responsibility, like passing on the torch of life, some confirmed response-abilty.
The question is: who should assess and confirm, so that we do not end up in some overall, narrow breeding scheme? What every child should be able to expect is to be born into some setting that can address its needs and – as it looks to me – the most reliable setting for addressing all of a child’s needs is a well-working and committed relationship between its father and its mother. If this observation holds true, it should make a big difference if society emphasises on many different levels the necessity to 1st build a committed relationship and only then have children. And since we are talking here about some kind of 3rd party assessment of whether the necessary conditions for inviting a new generation are actually fulfilled, the ones that seem to me most competent to do such an assessment would be (in principle) the parents of those who want to found a family. Sure, parents can make mistakes, be prejudiced and misguided, but since the influence of poor and unjust decisions would have only a small horizon and there would be as many independent decision-making units as there are families, human evolution could not be arbitrarily bent into a pathological direction.
Now what does this thinking practically amount to?
Get “married” before you have children and give the parents some right and duty to veto a marriage that they do not conceive to be wholesome until the want-to-be partners convince them otherwise. Weaning one's own parents away from prejudice is certainly no easy feat, but just as certainly such an effort will vastly improve the starting conditions for one's own family. Such an order of things would be tough to introduce, it would, as is the case with every arrangement, make for some unjust individual situations and it would demand from everybody to put – if push comes to shove – anticipated personal fulfilment second to the well-being of their potential children. Nevertheless, over all and in the long run I can imagine it to create a more wholesome start for the next generation than the pattern we are trying to apply today, in which everything is sacrificed for the sake of catering to individual promptings of the moment, short-lived fashions, whims and preferences.
(At this point I expect a storm of protest to break loose :-D )
reply
As a single parent whose friends are having fertility problems, this thought has weighed on my mind heavily. I was trying to leave an abusive marriage when I became pregnant, and I seriously considered adoption. Ultimately, I felt that the best decision for me and my child was to leave my marriage and be a single parent, and it has been the most wonderful and meaningful decision I have ever made. (So far my daughter agrees with me, but she's not a teenager yet!) Notwithstanding my own choice, it hardly seems fair that something so amazing and important as human life can come so easily to the unprepared. I look at my dear friends who are decidedly worthy to be parents, and yet will probably have to struggle for years before finally adding even one child to their family, and look at myself with my beautiful daughter, trying to do the best I can without any backup. I look at other single parents who seem more concerned with their own entertainment than in being parents, and at children who live with abusive or neglectful families, and I think about those couples that want so badly to become parents but are held back by the financial hardship adoption presents, and I wonder why.
- Feature
- Like
As a single parent whose friends are having fertility problems, this thought has weighed on my mind heavily. I was trying to leave an abusive marriage when I became pregnant, and I seriously considered adoption. Ultimately, I felt that the best decision for me and my child was to leave my marriage and be a single parent, and it has been the most wonderful and meaningful decision I have ever made. (So far my daughter agrees with me, but she's not a teenager yet!) Notwithstanding my own choice, it hardly seems fair that something so amazing and important as human life can come so easily to the unprepared. I look at my dear friends who are decidedly worthy to be parents, and yet will probably have to struggle for years before finally adding even one child to their family, and look at myself with my beautiful daughter, trying to do the best I can without any backup. I look at other single parents who seem more concerned with their own entertainment than in being parents, and at children who live with abusive or neglectful families, and I think about those couples that want so badly to become parents but are held back by the financial hardship adoption presents, and I wonder why.
Yet despite all that is unfair and even wrong with the way innocent lives can be handed out "willy-nilly," I believe someone higher than myself must have designed it this way on purpose. If there had been some kind of law requiring people to qualify for parenthood- I don't imagine I would have passed. I was not financially secure, I was not in the best emotional state, I was not in a healthy relationship, I was trying to NOT get pregnant. And yet, having a child has been the greatest miracle life has ever presented to me. She is probably the biggest reason I finally found the strength and courage to leave my abusive marriage and find the healing that I have. And though the balance is precarious, somehow I've managed to provide all the things a child deserves- a safe home, all the physical necessities, and love, discipline, attention and opportunity. I'm not trying to be vain, but I do believe that I am a good parent, and having a child has brought so much joy and significance to my life; it constantly challenges me to reach beyond myself and become more than what I was, for the benefit of someone else. What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe I would have qualified in other people's eyes to be given my daughter, but she was given to me anyway, and I am so grateful!
reply
I think kids DO choose their parents. That is, the higher Self of the child decides what it wants to experience, before it gets here, and it then chooses circumstances that will help it have those experiences.
- Feature
- Like
I think kids DO choose their parents. That is, the higher Self of the child decides what it wants to experience, before it gets here, and it then chooses circumstances that will help it have those experiences.
That aside, though, I think that people shouldn't have kids just because they can; I feel that people shouldn't have kids before they're done being kids themselves; and I also think everyone would be a lot better off if they just waited.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Right and wrong according to believes gained from the society, families, school, and other all knowing gods. I would step in and protect children (including the unborn) if I knew the parent was unfit. Being raised in an abusive home does not make someone unfit. Being developmentally delayed does not make someone unfit. Not having the financial resources does not make someone unfit. But the question is right or wrong not what makes a fit parent. I would line up with the people that support limiting parenthood, so I support making a decision for the welfare of children. I don't support limiting people's ability to use their sex organs.
reply
Not anyone can have a child, and sometimes, those are the people that most deserve to.
- Feature
- Like
Not anyone can have a child, and sometimes, those are the people that most deserve to.
It is my personal belief that anyone should be able to have a child. The most irresponsible of parents will probably abort in the first place, which is a whole different matter. The irresponsible that do give birth will either give up for adoption, or keep their child and learn something. If they still end up being stupid and neglect their child, it is lawful for the government to take the child away and settle him/her into a more caring environment.
In short, life is life, no matter if it came from stupid, careless people, or loving, wonderful people. So it should be celebrated, and once brought into this world, a child should be cared for by whoever will do the job.
reply
Alright, yes, some people aren't fit to be parents. But I think passing some sort of law or something dictating who can have children would be scarily similar to mandatory sterilization which was being practiced not so long ago in the U.S. and certainly in Germany before WWII.
- Feature
- Like
Alright, yes, some people aren't fit to be parents. But I think passing some sort of law or something dictating who can have children would be scarily similar to mandatory sterilization which was being practiced not so long ago in the U.S. and certainly in Germany before WWII.
Also, what about former laws against interracial marriage and procreation? Were they wrong?
And another thing, wasn't the main point of Roe vs. Wade so that we could have reproductive rights? Not only to NOT have kids, but also to HAVE kids.
I definitely think the cons outweigh any pros.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Children are the most valuable resource a society can have. Our society requires certain abilities and requirements before allowing individuals to do things like, for example, drive a car. To drive a car, you must take lessons, have a trial period with a learners permit and (in Virginia) buy insurance in case you have an accident. Our Society should also have requirements before someone takes on the responsibility to have a child. First, like driving, an individual should pass a test in child care and child development. The test can be a routine one given in high school. Second, they should pass a drug test. Third, they should have tax returns proving that they are contributing to the general welfare. Then you can get a license to have a child. I know this sounds harsh but I think children are that important.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Go to a 24 hour Wal-Mart at 1 or 2 AM, that will answer this question pretty handily. If nothing else, there should be mandatory birth control until age 21. If you can't have a beer until then, why should you be able to have a kid at 13?
reply
- Feature
- Like
I wish we could turn off every baby boy's fertility ability at birth until they are old enough to prove they can and will support their offspring. And the minute they don't, their fertilization is shut off again.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Having more children, like the Quiverfull people advocate, is NOT really a good idea, because the carrying capacity of the Earth is less than it was even during the Industrial Revolution. Adoption is more " humane ". At the same time, adoption agencies want to make sure that they're not giving a child over to a couple of serial - killers, mentally unstable people or child - molesters / pedophiles.
reply
- Feature
- Like
In Canada .. parents get a cheque called "Baby Bonus" .. it's around 100 bucks per child per month.
reply
the breeding issue is one of the least understood ones - in countries where women are afforded a decent education and can manage their families - birth rates drop to sustainable levels - been done in southern India its the fat f***s in the States and UK whose parents dropped out of the common sense arena who need it most
- Feature
- Like
the breeding issue is one of the least understood ones - in countries where women are afforded a decent education and can manage their families - birth rates drop to sustainable levels - been done in southern India its the fat f***s in the States and UK whose parents dropped out of the common sense arena who need it most
no need for punitive laws - just education...
but just in case joe does get to be King - I am the one that gets to decide and certify who is sane and who is not -
one basic question - how do you respond to the words, "Tea, Party & Republican"?
reply
Joe,Joe he's our man. If Joe can't do it , nobody can.
- Feature
- Like
Joe,Joe he's our man. If Joe can't do it , nobody can.
You don't need a city council , you need Joecounsel
Joecounsel will win the day.
King Joe
reply
- Feature
- Like
If you want to get down to it, it is not really right for anyone to have children.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Of course it's not right! If there was a way to keep unfit parents from breeding It would be implimented right away. I totally agree with joecounsel's idea. Sounds just peachy to me
reply
If we were to apply a sort of selective-breeding process to people, we could actually improve the human race as a whole. Of course, this would be completely unethical and no logical person would vote for it.
- Feature
- Like
If we were to apply a sort of selective-breeding process to people, we could actually improve the human race as a whole. Of course, this would be completely unethical and no logical person would vote for it.
their thoughts:
"If I vote this in, what's to keep the government from not letting me have kids?"
reply
Obviously, I need to take over. You folks just appoint me king of the world and I will regulate human behavior in detail.
- Feature
- Like
Obviously, I need to take over. You folks just appoint me king of the world and I will regulate human behavior in detail.
First, a general moratorium on pregnancy. I don't know, a few months to a year. Don't want to OB-Gyns out of business. Then, extensive psychological testing of anyone wanting to be a parent. Enforced birth control until prospective parents pass.
Any child born to unapproved parents will be offered for adoption to approved parents and biological parents will be summarily executed, of course.
When the Earth's population is reduced to about 2,000,000,000, then the strictest limits will be relaxed, but only intelligent, educated, financially secure people will be allowed to reproduce. They must also be certified as mentally and emotionally sound.
This will solve all of Earth's problems from global warming to over-fishing of the oceans.
Naturally, right-wing whackos will never reproduce.
:o)
reply
- Feature
- Like
