do you think people should be screened by the government for the right to have a baby

[ghost15]

i was having debate with my sister, and she is on her way to getting a masters in social work. she did her internship in a county jail. she sees alot of criminals. we were having debate on the whole product of their envoirment thing. we both came to the agreement that parents should be interviewed by a phsycologist and have a drug tested in order to legally have a baby. Alot of the people she deals with grew in bad homes and parents addicted to crack. We both figured if everyone grew upin a good family it would really cut down the crime rate. what do you think.

[The Guard]

What a screwed-up world.

I'm not bashing your post. I'm saying "what a screwed-up world". It sucks that we ever have to make decisions like this. And then you get into the "is it a right or a priviledge?" thing. And then you get into "should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?". As for screening...good luck. If someone (criminal or not) has sex enough, babies will happen. You have to remember that criminals are people, too.

[Sheamon]

The right to reproduce is the most basic human right because everyone, regardless of class, intelligence, situation, location, etc... has the ability to do it. Take that away and there's no point in discussing rights like speech or religon.

Now its a whole different matter once the kid's actually born. Being a parent isn't a right, its a privelage. If you're not fit to be a parent, whether you abuse it, abandon it, or whatever, the kid gets taken away (or should, if the authorities are doing their jobs properly). There's a difference between the right to have the baby and the right to raise it. So I'd say I totally disagree with what you're saying, in other words taking away the right to produce a baby through sexual intercourse. :rolleyes:

[SpaceCub]

I think it would be nice, as long as it the standards aren't raised too high.

As for the whole possibility to monitor child birth in criminals, well, we could always make it phsyically impossible for criminals to have children, can't we? Infringes on their rights? As Heinlein would say, man is born without rights. My child has to go to school with your poorly raised child. Whose rights are more important? My child's rights to have an unharassed life by his/her peers, or your child's right to existance? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Two men are on a boat in the middle of the ocean. They need to eat or they will die, but the only thing on the boat is the two of them. Who has the right to live?

Yeah, in our society we give people rights. But what is a criminal? Someone who chooses to disobey the rules of society and therefore lives outside of it. Criminals do not have rights in a society they choose not to be a part of.

We both figured if everyone grew upin a good family it would really cut down the crime rate

The problem is that there are lots of different opinions defining a "good family." And then you always have children from good family's that do bad things.

---
"Just one time I'd like to hear one of them say, 'My mom was great, my dad was great, I'm just a [expletive deleted]-head'"

[ghost15]

thats true some people from good families screw up but it would still cut the crime rate. i am not saying a ex-con should not have the right to have a child. The judicial system should correct criminals even though not all are helped. but i think all people should screened and if they are not going to have good parent the child should be taken away after birth.

[randomguy]

Good God no. It's so... Orwellian, almost.

[GrayGhost]

I say no. I mean, then wouldn't they basically not be able to have sex until they were screened? What would they do if a couple accidently gets pregnant (say a certain contraceptive breaks or something)? Too many holes in having the gov. screen you before you have a baby.

[Frozen]

Call me cold, call me hard-hearted, but I 100% positively endorse the concept of having 'aptitude' tests for would be parents. When I left home, I had the mis-fortune to live in some pretty bad areas, and I know, first hand, that some of the types of people we're talking about here are just parasites, and they're pro-creating exponentialy - not all of 'em, but a fair few...

I hear the argument that they have a right to have babies, but what future do these kids have? None. They're born into bad families in bad areas, and they have NO CHANCE to better themselves... What right does anybody have to damn a child top that..?

[Clayface]

I'm with Frozen on this one - having lived in some bad areas in my time as well, I know exactly where he's coming from - there are some people that just should not, by any means, be allowed to reproduce at their own whim.

Heck, you have to have a lisence in this country to do so many other things, but something as complicated as having and raising a child any schmoe can do freely - that disturbs me.

[ninjagirl]

the government has prevented certain people from reproducing through forced sterilizations in the past.
it's called eugenics, basicaly trying to breed a better human.
as to reducing crime, if crime and behavior was only a product of environment, i.e. the criminals have no choice, it might make sense.
but humans have this little thing called "free will."
despite ones origins one can choose to do right or wrong.
abject poverty doesn't always lead to a life of crime and having "bad parents" is no excuse for doing bad things.
if it was then how is it justice to punish "underpriviliged" people as harshly or worse that "overpriviliged" criminals.
i suggest a better way would be encouraging prospective parents to take parenting classes to learn basic skills
and leaving government out of the equation as much as possible.

[VashTheStampede]

I do think you should be screened to reproduce, I also think you should have to take an IQ test to be able to vote, then we might elect smarter politicians. Some people are not meant to have kids.

[ninjagirl]

i do concede that in drastic cases people forfeit their parental rights,
but giving the government the right to decide if you should even have kids is going too far.
and i am a firm believer that as long as we are alive we have a chance to better ourselves

[DR. BELCH]

--with the question. First, "government". I get very tired of everybody wanting Mother Government in every single matter, as if they're too ignorant to make decisions themselves and there has to be a law passed regarding everything. Secondly, parenthood is not a "right", it is a privilage, and I get sick of seeing every moron and deviant screaming for their supposed "right" to be stupid and deviant and taking away from the real victims who have actually suffered unfair losses.
You don't think upper-class people are just as criminally deviant as lower-ones? Look at the Kennedys.
Or consider this: try to get a date with some rich girl whose father actually tells you he doesn't have a daughter just because he doesn't think you're worthy to date her just because you're a few rungs below them on the socioeconomic ladder. The only difference is, the rich girls have daddy's money to help clean up their mistakes, pay off whoever needs paying off, and abort their little boo-boos. Look at how many upper-class brats are slumming it just to get away from parental tyrrany and the you-know what-less Ken dolls Big Daddy approves of and running off to find a little peice of real happiness...then picture this on a grand scale with the government as "Daddy" and countless fringe groups outside the law as the darling daughter fooling around with men he doesn't approve of. You see my point.
So if you want to go back to the days of Stalin and Hitler and have those deemed unfit wear some sort of little insignia sictched on their shirts, then I suppose we could implement such a thing....

[Frozen]

Originally posted by ninjagirl

and i am a firm believer that as long as we are alive we have a chance to better ourselves

Tell that to the kids I've seen eating dirt in the streets, who get NO SUPPORT WHAT-SO-EVER from their family/single parent who just uses the poor kid as an exscuse to get benefits, who stays out all night 'cos he/she has nowhere to go, not even a home, who'll go on to perpetuate the cycle of abuse 'cos that's all they know, who are brought up to resent the police, the government, and 'them'. And do you know who 'them' is? You and me. Anybody who's had anything in life, 'cos they have NOTHING. No love. No money. No future.

Being a firm believer that you can getter yourselves if you get the opportunities is all fine and dandy IF YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITIES... and not many of these poor kids do.

[The Flash]

Freedom. Go look it up.


Now, I agree that some people should not have babies, for one reason or another. But what right does anybody have to take that away from them? It's their life, if they want one let them. Also, just how the hell would you stop people from having babies? Cut their bits and pieces off? What a sick idea. How many other rights do people want taken away? Go move to Cuba or something. :rolleyes:

[Frozen]

Freedom to do what? Perpetuate your own sorry excuse for a life? I'm not saying anybody under 18K shouldn't be able to have kids - nobody here has. I'm saying that society owes it to itself to make sure prospective parents are screened to ensure they will be fit parents who will actually support their kids and attempt to help 'em do something with their lives - does that sound so bad?

I've seen parents who do nothing but beat their kids, ause 'em, and teach 'em that life is nothing but a hateful existance - I make no apologies for wanting to see that kind of moral dereliction stamped out at source...

Social responsibility - go look it up.

[The Flash]

Maybe in a world with perfect rules and perfect answers. This isn't a perfect world and there are no perfect answers. I don't like the thought of somebody looking me up and telling me if I can have a child or not. There is no freedom in that, at all. If you can point and tell me where the freedom is in it, please do so. Can you? Can you tell me where the freedom is if the government could actually do that? Don’t twist the question and tell me how rough some kids have it, really, tell me where the freedom is in a law like that. Also, don't point out other existing law to me that don't bare much freedom, just answer the question. I don't want examples of why you think it's a good law, just tell me where the freedom is. Then again, you could always ignore the question, which is very probable. :)

[Frozen]

Flash, my friend, I respect you too much to ignore you. Have I ever ignored a direct question from yourself... well, actually, yeah, maybe I have, but not intentionally... anyway... getting back to the question...

There's a difference between a society with laws and restraints, and a society with total freedom - because total freedom is, by definition, anarchy. Anarchy isn't a bad thing, in theory, but the theory falls down when you're getting mugged on every street corner 'cos there are no laws, and no law enforcement officers, to prevent it. So, sure, you're right, if you impose a law were a prospective parent has to prove they're going to be a good parent, then you have lost a little of the freedom that prospective parent had before - just the same way a mugger has lost the freedom to rob and steal with impunity.

There you go - no morale judgement, no attempt to tell you if I think it's a good law or not, just an answer to your question.

Also, I'm curious to see that you've edited your previous post and removed the instruction "Freedom - go look it up." - Why is that, exactly?

[The Flash]

Originally posted by Frozen
Flash, my friend, I respect you too much to ignore you. Have I ever ignored a direct question from yourself... well, actually, yeah, maybe I have, but not intentionally... anyway... getting back to the question...

And I respect you too much to say something like that to you, my question went out to everybody, not just you. I should have worded that better. Sorry if you took that the wrong way. :)

...just the same way a mugger has lost the freedom to rob and steal with impunity.

You're exactly right about that. I'm not saying that total anarchy is the way to go. But we can't take all of our freedoms away. They're slowly dissolving. The thing is, what if the law passes, the government is going mess up. They’re not perfect, nobody is or ever will be. What if a person lives in a bad area, and most of his or her family is rotting in jail, but is a good person with great morals and respects all laws. Would they look at that and not let the person have a child because of the person's faimly and where that person lives? How do they know if a person is good parent material? How does anybody? I don't want the government to be God. That law would give them way to much power, and I already think that they have too much.

Also, I'm curious to see that you've edited your previous post and removed the instruction "Freedom - go look it up." - Why is that, exactly?

I didn't, it's still there now... Strange. :)

[Frozen]

Originally posted by The Flash

What if a person lives in a bad area, and most of his or her family is rotting in jail, but is a good person with great morals and respects all laws. Would they look at that and not let the person have a child because of the person's faimly and where that person lives?

No God No! I never meant a person should be judged or pre-judged on such criteria. No, I'm talking about a series of carefully devised tests, questions, tasks etc - kind of like the Mensa test, but with a different aim in mind. I'm not for one minute saying you exclude somebody from having kids just 'cos they're born in a bad area, or have a dodgy family... Hell no! The only criteria you'd have for barring them from parenthood is a series of tests that proved they'd be horrible parents in the future - kinds like Minority Report, but more like Maternity Report...

Originally posted by The Flash


I didn't, it's still there now... Strange. :)

Yes, you're right, it's still there... and, Yes, you're right, I was looking in the wrong place for it... :o

[James]

I'm more with Frozen on this one. If we set aside the issue of whether such a scheme could be implemented, I think we are looking at whether the right to have children is a right or a privilage.

Many people, both the educated and the ignorant cling onto the belief that the basic principle of freedom is that it's up to them whether they have children.

Having children is the biggest, toughest and most pivitol role anyone can have in the world. Period. There is no more life altering role. It will be YOU who will bring up, educate and look after the child. Your responsibility alone.

I imagine we can all look back at some of the most memorable or life altering situations which came about through your parents choices. To them, they may have been trivial, to the child it can be something that affects their entire life. This is the situation for even the best family. Parenting is the most difficult road we can tread, the better the parent, the more chance that kid will have a good start to life.

Okay, what happens when the parent isn't ready? The parent is not mentally capable to have kids? Well at the moment, nothing because it's deemed the parents RIGHT to have children regardless of the issues. They can create and destroy a child's indentity at a whim.

At the moment the education and social services have to work as damage control - they have no rights to prevent or attempt to disuade potential parents not to have kids. They have to clean up the mess - a near impossible task. Why? Because it's socialably acceptable for people to deem parenting their right. Their right? Where their actions will shape and possibly destroy the destiny of another person? That's wrong.

This is not an issue of freedom. This is not an issue of Eugenics. We are not looking at shaping a more superior race as such, we are just looking at a change in philosophy which may help another generation. Sure, it would never be perfect, but it would be a step forward to making sure every child has a better future.

Children are not a right. Building anothers character. Shaping their future - shaping their past, how they look back at life. That as I said is the most important job anyone can face in life as such, it's a privilage, not a right.

A step... but how would be actioned?

I have no idea of the perfect soloution. I'm a moderator not a philosopher dammit!

I agree making it a law is a bold and potentially dangerous step. It couldn't possibly cover everyone. Science fiction offers the obvious alternative - all to be sterilised from birth so they can't have kids until deemed stable enough to do so. Again, this would never be perfect, but it's the right philosophy.

More realistically, we have to give away more rights and take more responsibility. We must educate people that this isn't a right - it's a privilage. It's something that EVERYONE needs help and a BAD parent is someone who refuses to recognize that.

I suggest that all potential parents should be enrolled in a mandatory Parental teaching programme. They should be taught the psychology of kids and that they are privilaged to be parents. The child has more rights that the parent. The parent gives up certain rights by agreeing to have children. They should realise that children are not something which any family should deal with on their own and need to work within the community.

It should be more common for authorities to regulate and do random calls on all school kids.

Social and learning services must be given more power. Kids who are in danger should be immediately removed from the enviroment until an investigation has confirmed the findings not the other way round.

Parents shouldn't be able to control schools (as what is happening in the UK, the last right wing goverenment opted to give more power to the parents as a governing role and as such have created an impotent education system where the PARENT knows best!). Schools must have the final say in educating the kids.

Simply, they should learn that they need help to have children. We need to break this social belief that kids are the parents right and therefore the parent has the final say. Parents should see their roles as GUARDIANS more than as judge and jury.

[Frozen]

Bravo SJJ - a great post with a well articulated, reasoned responce.

Naturally I agree with SJJ. I spent years seeing way too many examples of atrocious parents DESTROYING their childs future, their self-respect, and their self-image. This shouldn't be allowed - like the man said, looking after kids is THE responsibilty that a person faces in life, and the kind of people I'm talking about excluding from parenthood can't even look after themselves, let alone a child...

[Opaque]

what the hell? are there really people so insane as to say yes? thats not a privelege that not even a government based right, thats a right for being alive. we don't livein china, the government don't own us.

[The Guard]

Yes. There are.

[James]

Originally posted by Box Drink
what the hell? are there really people so insane as to say yes? thats not a privelege that not even a government based right, thats a right for being alive. we don't livein china, the government don't own us.

I think the concept requires thought - if nothing else I think a move away from total parental control to a balance between parents and social services would be a fair and moderate step. The logic behind why the govenement should have stronger controls is straightforward. The need for an impartial overseer as a preventative makes sense. Whether it could be implied fairly and effectively is of course, another matter.

All I will say is this is not a 1984 concept here. This is a concept at trying to stop maltreatment of children by preventing those too messed up or uneducated into having kids. This is not quite the same as what China has tried, although the intervention of politics is a fair parallel.

I've worked in education welfare and the schooling system. The majority of people involved in that will tell you that the main attribute to messed up children is the parents.

Not TV. Not their peers. Not the drugs. Not the alcohol. Not the video games.

The parents.

If that is the case, it makes sense to protect the rights of kids by stopping such poor parenting ever taking place. Do we not owe something to them?

[The Flash]

Originally posted by SJJ
If that is the case, it makes sense to protect the rights of kids by stopping such poor parenting ever taking place. Do we not owe something to them?

Yes, but preventing them from being born isn't the right step. (I think that's what this poll was getting at??) I’m not all for the government sticking their noses into people’s business. But there are some cases that I wouldn’t mind it. And ,yes, it is the parents. Nothing more nothing less. But taking the kid away from them doesn't always help the matter. I would reckon that in some cases, it'd make it worse.

There are cases, where it would be better. Such as before I moved, at my old house, there was a trailer park behind us. Not directly behind, there was my backyard, a fence, some trees, bushes, and a ditch (aka, SWAMP ;)) that separated us. Most of the people that lived back there were great, except at this joint. A big, fat, white trash, mama, with blonde hair that looked like it had never been combed, lived there. With a “front yard” full of crap. You name it, it was laying in it. Every so often you’d hear her yelling at her boyfriend (she went through lots of those). Then she’d chase him out of the house, he’d drive off in his truck, cursing all the way. In some cases she’d get on her bicycle (YES, bicycle) and drive off. You’d also hear her children (I think she had 3 or 4 of them, I don’t really know.) tell them to stop, ect. I won’t go into details, but she’d curse at ‘em, throw stuff around, ya know. Those kids are still pretty young (7-12?). I wouldn’t have minded it if somebody had came along and taken them away. Our neighbor even called the cops on the lady once, I don’t know what happened, but it still went on.

Now, what if the government had not of let her, err, make, those kids? That’s not right! But what if they took them away? Well, I think that’d be the right thing to do, in this case. Maybe I misunderstood the initial question for this thread, I dunno.

[Opaque]

the conspet does not require thought. no one should be told that they can't have a baby without government permision. thats unconstitutional i'm sure.

[ghost15]

i actually mis worded the pole i should have said keep the baby. The problem is most people get so hung up on making sure they have certain untampered rights just for the point of having the right not thinking of all the problems it could cause. who cares if they take away a bit of your priviledged freedom if it helps kids grow up better and make the streets your kids or future kids may walk daily. i know i do not want to get mugged or killed cause a child was braught up to think the police, gov., and laws are the enemy. i am not saying these screenings should be based on what part of the city you live in or what your family has done or is like.

[Frozen]

The question is best put in these terms: Should we stop bad parents who can't look after themselves or raise kids from having children in the first place? Call me right wing, but it sounds pretty cut and dried to me...

[Romanesque]

Holding my own thoughts back for a second...

I feel the need to toss out another question or two (or three, four, five...). How does one properly discern a "bad parent" from a "good parent" before they've become one? How strict are the determining parameters? Who should determine these parameters? Can we be sure the parameters will always be reasonable once some kind of system is implemented? While certain cases might seem obvious (drug addicts, etc.), the extreme examples alone don't necessarily count for the majority of potentially bad parents. Furthermore, at which point would a person's past actions and "parental potential" history be nullified? How much room do we allow for reform? What's to be done with all the children born outside of guidelines, especially when the number of such children may be substantial?

Unless someone can answer all these questions (and a good many more) in detail, I'd say they should give the matter a lot more thought before deciding to give their government the level of power to decide who qualifies as a parent.

Finally... I do agree that there's a vast majority of parents out there who never should have had children in the first place. Then again, I don't believe it's a government's place to be deciding for anybody...

--Romey

[Frozen]

As with all great theories, the actual practicality of the situation is a vexed question. I freely throw my hands up and admit I have no idea how such safeguards should be implemented, but I do know they'd be a good idea...

[James]

Originally posted by Frozen
As with all great theories, the actual practicality of the situation is a vexed question. I freely throw my hands up and admit I have no idea how such safeguards should be implemented, but I do know they'd be a good idea...


Romey's points are exactly the problem I had - and Frozen has sumed it up.

I don't think we - as non experts in social reform - should be debating how specifically the changes could be made, only that there is a strong ethical reason to look at alterations to parental rights.

In regards to your points Flash, I do agree there is no cut and dried scenerio, but we do need to look at the way we allow unfit parents to have children. Perhaps in the cases where kids were born to parents deemed unfit to parent a child, an extreme soloution would be to have that child immediately fostered.

Again, I must stress this isn't a 1984 or even a political issue. The reform would be a social one. It's to make sure all kids have an equal start. In some respects Frozen, I'd say that's a left wing approach!

Finally the thread starter himself, Ghost15 has hit another point which I think is an issue here. Personal freedom. Consitutional rights.

The problem is most people get so hung up on making sure they have certain untampered rights just for the point of having the right not thinking of all the problems it could cause. who cares if they take away a bit of your priviledged freedom if it helps kids grow up better and make the streets your kids or future kids may walk daily.

I think that is very much an issue which has appeared in this thread. People have a natural fear of losing freedom. Many posts have been concerned about this, and it's understandable. However, I don't see this as an issue of freedom, in the same way that people aren't allowed to beat, rape, kill people. That could be an example of loss of personal freedom. Or that we can't just set up a house on any bit of land - the law forbids it. We don't count these as issues of freedom. These are points where we are protected from others from doing what they want just because the want to - not because it's right.

That is a major point. I don't think this is an issue of freedom, a scoial reform like this stops people from doing something that is totally wrong - having a baby where they are unable to support such a function - just like we don't allow you to drive until you pass your driving test. Again, surely you could argue that such a test inhibits your personal freedom? I doubt it, and it's THIS angle which I think those who are interest in some sort of reform to prevent those unable to parent responsibly having the chance.

[The Guard]

It's to make sure all kids have an equal start.

There's no such thing. That's impossible.

[James]

Originally posted by The Guard
It's to make sure all kids have an equal start.

There's no such thing. That's impossible.

That's a mission statement. Mission statements define objectives, they don't deal with probability. The reason I support a stronger governing of parental rights is because I want all kids to have an equal start. I know it's practically impossible, but it's the ultimate aim.

We must look to the positive. We choose to follow path x as we wish to give all kids an equal start. It's a goal. How well it succeeds is left to the application of the mission statement. We can't apply it so we must judge it philosophically.

[The Guard]

I did. It's impossible. :)

[James]

Originally posted by The Guard
I did. It's impossible. :)

Captain Pedantic, eh? ;)

But again, just because something might be unobtainable doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Okay then, we should try to make it so every kid has an equal start. I don't think we have this philosophy nailed down in the Western world yet...

[randomguy]

Ok, I'm gonna come as close as I have ever come to pouring out my soul here. See, I'm adopted. I'm the biological child (I'll spare you the details) of someone who would never, ever, EVER get approved to have a child, if such a process was nessecary. But I am DAMN glad to be here. How that figures into this whole argument I don't know. But I do know that I'm happy to be alive, and somehow, that connects.

More realistically, we have to give away more rights and take more responsibility.

Well, beyond all shadow of a doubt, we do need to take more social responsibility. I think one of the biggest problems in America today is passiveness (if that's word) when it comes to our social situation. Perhaps people are afraid to become too focused on America's society, cause once you do, it's pretty grim stuff. And there's no turning back once you start to ask the big questions. I think this thread has proven that. But I don't nessecarily think that we have to give up more rights to take more responsibility. I'm not sure the two are connected at all. Call me a pessimist, but I don't consider any government existing today, and likely forever into the future, to be capable of regulating something like this without eventually becoming highly corrupted. I don't really trust Mother Government to handle something like this. What people need to do is take personal responsibility. Not because the government makes them. Because they care. I don't think giving up rights well help the situation- the only thing I think will help is for people like you and me to step up to the plate and take care of things ourselves, and try our best to make sure the others around us will do the same. All the great movements of the past are motivated by people; not by government. The matter of parenting is our battleground, and people must take that responsibility on themselves, not have it forced upon them. How effective would governmental standards be if the people are not into them? It is our responsibility to address this issue, not Big Brother's, and it is only us that can solve these problems effectively.

Or, at least, that's my opinion.

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by randomguy
Ok, I'm gonna come as close as I have ever come to pouring out my soul here. See, I'm adopted. I'm the biological child (I'll spare you the details) of someone who would never, ever, EVER get approved to have a child, if such a process was nessecary. But I am DAMN glad to be here. How that figures into this whole argument I don't know. But I do know that I'm happy to be alive, and somehow, that connects.

Random guy brings in a good point that shows why I want restrictions, but also how I don't always trust the government: There can always be exceptions. :)

In fact, it's the same greed (and other negative aspects of human emotions) motivated way of thinking from humans that causes both the possible improperly executed governement actions, and the abusive parent actions. Peoples is peoples! The bottom line is the fact we need something that can provide checks and ballances for BOTH sides: the potential parents, and the governemt.

Screening potential parents might or might not be the answer, but God knows I'm looking for one that can help get our children the lives and futures they need to grow up, and become smart enough and strong enough to handle the same types of controversial crap issues like the one we're talking about right now. :p THAT'S what's most important.

[James]

Originally posted by randomguy


How effective would governmental standards be if the people are not into them? It is our responsibility to address this issue, not Big Brother's, and it is only us that can solve these problems effectively.



Beautifully put. I think that is the crux. Any government movenment would fall on it's face if people weren't prepared to back it. We have to want a reform before there is any govenment intervention.

Originally posted by Nightwing

Screening potential parents might or might not be the answer, but God knows I'm looking for one that can help get our children the lives and futures they need to grow up, and become smart enough and strong enough to handle the same types of controversial crap issues like the one we're talking about right now.

Totally. Eduaction goes hand in hand with character and it's parenting which provides a strong sense of well being. To be proud of who you are.
That's something only a parent can help provide. The foundations to your character.

[Maxie Zeus]

Okay, it's expensive for me to post while out of the country, and so I have ignored everything except my own "Maxie Goes To Greece" thread. But someone very nicely asked if I would read this and weigh in, and since it was one of my best buds on these boards, I can't say no. But I'm not sure he'll be pleased with my response. It's pretty direct:

1. Practicality: Tolstoy said that every happy family is happy in exactly the same way, while the unhappy are unhappy in their own unique fashion. Even allowing for a novelist's right to hyperbole, I think he's on to something. How can a social worker or psychologist who is responsible for dozens of cases be obviously better at judging the ability of one family to make this kind of decision than the family itself? And to say that some battery of tests will answer the question is to traffic in intellectual hubris. How can such a test possibly be delicate and sensitive enough to pick out the "what ifs" and "could bes" associated with a human life? I don't even trust those tests that tell me what kind of career I should choose.

2. Social: Simple justice requires that all be subject to this approach. But the wealthy (or even the middle class) will successfully resist such a regime. Money always does. Therefore, either only the poor will be subject to this regime -- in which case it will apply to people on the basis of economic position, not parental fitness. Or a massive socio-economic leveling will have to occur, of the kind practiced in Cuba, North Korea, and behind the late and unlamented Iron Curtain.

3. Choice: A woman, it is held in progressive circles, has an unalienable right to control her own body, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. That right is abridged when she no longer has the right to conceive or carry a child to term at the time and in the circumstances of her choosing.

4. Dignity: The creating, nurturing and raising of children is the deepest and most profund task a human being can undertake. It is humanity's greatest expression of its creative urge. We not only can give birth (even cockroaches can do that) but are artists in the making of a person -- an intelligent and independent being. When this goes wrong, it is the greatest of tragedies, and the kind of tragedy that motivates those thoughtful people who have supportive things to say about controls. But to say that people cannot be trusted with this vital task is to say that they cannot be trusted with the important things, only with the trivial.

5. A parallel argument: It has already been observed that many problems of child-raising stem from screwed up families. That suggests the easiest way to prevent such problems is to prevent screwed up families from forming. In other words, the control should not be at the level of the having of children, but at the level of mating. The battery of tests being contemplated should be administered at and after the adolescent stage, and directed at the choosing of life partners. In other words, the government should have the power to tell you who you can date, who you can screw, and who you can marry. That would clear up most of the follow up problems. Do I hear any takers?

6. Simple outrage: Here I join the emotional chorus. Just who the hell are you to think that you or somebody else has the right to run my business for me? It's the technocratic urge run amok -- the intuition that because an engineer can build a better bridge than I can, then an engineer can build a better family. This is to confuse families with computer networks, people with robots, and society with a traffic grid.

7. False choice: "Right vs. Privelege" is a false dichotomy. Both terms only have an application within a system of laws and social norms; the lion has no "right" or "privelege" to kill the lamb, because the lion does not live in a society of ethics and morals. Humans are peculiar creatures in that they are simultaneously creatures of reason and morals, and hence subject to logic and law, and animals. To reduce all human behavior to the former is to destroy our physical existence as biological organisms subject to the peculiar "logic" of life. A legal regime that forgets that fact is one that will treat people as bloodless abstractions, as social types rather than individuals composed of bone and flesh and blood.

Is eating a "right" or a "privilege"? It can be treated as both: One can have the "right" to sustenance, but one can also forfeit it (as when food is diverted to those even needier). The better answer is to say simply that it is a human necessity subject to social complications, but is not itself a social construction. Similarly with children: Species procreate, whether we pretend to legislate on that fact or not. And although that activity can be regulated in various ways-- as can eating -- it cannot be reduced to, cannot be held to be nothing but a legal arrangement. Otherwise the "right" or "privilege" of having children has no firmer foundation than the "right" or "privilege" of driving on the right hand side of the road, and is similarly subject to the whim of the legislator.

Of course, we all live in a dense network of social relationships, and the fabric can twist and rend in horrific ways. Those who see some plausibility in the suggestion that parental controls be instituted are, I think, reacting against the atomization of modern society: Because we no longer support each other in the way we used to (and the way we may be biologically designed) that therefore we must find some other way of giving people the support and encouragment (or discouragement) that was once given by neighbors and elders.

Well, yes. Times and circumstances change, and it is the blessing of intelligence that we can react to those changes in subtle and ingenious ways. But we must not confuse institutions and practices in our proper urge to fix things. It may take a village to raise a child, but the government (federal or local) is not a village, and the secretary of Health and Human Services is not my grandmother. To suggest, even by implicit comparison, that they are is, IMO, grotesque and inhuman.

Now that I am an adult I dislike playing "Mother May I." I moved out of my parents' house because I didn't want them making my decisions for me anymore. To exchange a parent for a bureaucrat is to make a mockery of the idea of adult independence and responsibility.

[Joe Tully]

I agree that the government shouldn't be able to make these decisions for a few reasons, the simplest being that it's just plain impossible for them to have that kind of control.

But, I have a question for everyone who opposes government controlling their lives. If you think that it's wrong for the government to make decisions for you, then how do you feel about laws against drug use, prostitution, suicide, and other "crimes" that don't hurt anyone against their consent? I think that many of these laws are necessary, but is it at all possible to draw a line between these crimes and the government regulation that's being proposed? At what point can we tell the difference between just trying to reasonably improve our society and imposing fascist rules on others?

[Clayface]

A few comments I'd like to make on Maxie's post:

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

1. Practicality: Tolstoy said that every happy family is happy in exactly the same way, while the unhappy are unhappy in their own unique fashion. Even allowing for a novelist's right to hyperbole, I think he's on to something. How can a social worker or psychologist who is responsible for dozens of cases be obviously better at judging the ability of one family to make this kind of decision than the family itself? And to say that some battery of tests will answer the question is to traffic in intellectual hubris. How can such a test possibly be delicate and sensitive enough to pick out the "what ifs" and "could bes" associated with a human life? I don't even trust those tests that tell me what kind of career I should choose.



I think everyone is in agreement that such an undertaking is a monumentally complex task. But to say that it shouldn't be done just because its complex, or because some errors could occur is, at best, cowardice, and at worst, ignorance, IMO. No science is perfect, but we don't abandon it all because of the potential for something to go wrong or because its not perfect. It all takes trial and error, and a lot of honing. Its my feeling that there are, at the very least, several factors that are outright signs that you should not be allowed to procreate. If you are a heroine addict, IMO, you should not be allowed to have children. If you cannot take care of yourself, you should in no way be allowed to have a child to take care of, IMO.



2. Social: Simple justice requires that all be subject to this approach. But the wealthy (or even the middle class) will successfully resist such a regime. Money always does. Therefore, either only the poor will be subject to this regime -- in which case it will apply to people on the basis of economic position, not parental fitness. Or a massive socio-economic leveling will have to occur, of the kind practiced in Cuba, North Korea, and behind the late and unlamented Iron Curtain.



Any law in this country can be gotten around if you're rich of enough. Should we then abandon all laws in this country? All regulations? All because of the potential of some to misuse them? I think not. Again, the system is not perfect, but its a starting point.



3. Choice: A woman, it is held in progressive circles, has an unalienable right to control her own body, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. That right is abridged when she no longer has the right to conceive or carry a child to term at the time and in the circumstances of her choosing.



Well, that "right" is still a hot topic of debate, and I'm not sure if its really a can of worms we want to open here on these boards. Could get ugly. So I'm just going to leave this point alone for now.



4. Dignity: The creating, nurturing and raising of children is the deepest and most profund task a human being can undertake. It is humanity's greatest expression of its creative urge. We not only can give birth (even cockroaches can do that) but are artists in the making of a person -- an intelligent and independent being. When this goes wrong, it is the greatest of tragedies, and the kind of tragedy that motivates those thoughtful people who have supportive things to say about controls. But to say that people cannot be trusted with this vital task is to say that they cannot be trusted with the important things, only with the trivial.



I don't agree. If you are to become a doctor in this country, you must prove your worthiness. You have a large responsibility as a doctor, and thus you have to go through years of training, and follow all the government imposed regulations. IMO, being a parent has just as much if not more responsibility involved. Why then, can any schmoe have a child without similar training and regulations?



5. A parallel argument: It has already been observed that many problems of child-raising stem from screwed up families. That suggests the easiest way to prevent such problems is to prevent screwed up families from forming. In other words, the control should not be at the level of the having of children, but at the level of mating. The battery of tests being contemplated should be administered at and after the adolescent stage, and directed at the choosing of life partners. In other words, the government should have the power to tell you who you can date, who you can screw, and who you can marry. That would clear up most of the follow up problems. Do I hear any takers?



I don't follow your logic here. To prevent the problems, you have to break the "bad parenting" cycle. You do this at the level of having children, not at the level of two adults in a relationship. Two adults in a relationship can choose to stay or leave a screwed up relationship. A child cannot.



6. Simple outrage: Here I join the emotional chorus. Just who the hell are you to think that you or somebody else has the right to run my business for me? It's the technocratic urge run amok -- the intuition that because an engineer can build a better bridge than I can, then an engineer can build a better family. This is to confuse families with computer networks, people with robots, and society with a traffic grid.



Again, I point out the example of becoming a doctor. If you want to be one, you have to prove you can handle the responsibility and live up to the standards and regulations. If you fail as you're trying to get your degree, you don't become a doctor. Potential parents should have to go through similar training and requirements.

If you get behind the wheel of a car drunk, you can lose your lisence - your right/privelege to drive. Even if you don't get in an accident. Even if you don't kill or hurt anyone in the process. Even if you don't get in a crash. You can lose that right/privelege simply because of the tremendous potential of the damage you can do. Why then are potential parent's not held to the same standards?



7. False choice: "Right vs. Privelege" is a false dichotomy. Both terms only have an application within a system of laws and social norms; the lion has no "right" or "privelege" to kill the lamb, because the lion does not live in a society of ethics and morals. Humans are peculiar creatures in that they are simultaneously creatures of reason and morals, and hence subject to logic and law, and animals. To reduce all human behavior to the former is to destroy our physical existence as biological organisms subject to the peculiar "logic" of life. A legal regime that forgets that fact is one that will treat people as bloodless abstractions, as social types rather than individuals composed of bone and flesh and blood.

Is eating a "right" or a "privilege"? It can be treated as both: One can have the "right" to sustenance, but one can also forfeit it (as when food is diverted to those even needier).



I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Why does this make it a privelege rather than a right?



The better answer is to say simply that it is a human necessity subject to social complications, but is not itself a social construction. Similarly with children: Species procreate, whether we pretend to legislate on that fact or not. And although that activity can be regulated in various ways-- as can eating -- it cannot be reduced to, cannot be held to be nothing but a legal arrangement. Otherwise the "right" or "privilege" of having children has no firmer foundation than the "right" or "privilege" of driving on the right hand side of the road, and is similarly subject to the whim of the legislator.



I don't believe the comparison here is a fair one. If I take away your right to eat, you die. If I take away your privelege to have children, your life continues - very different consequences. I don't think you can compare the two.



Of course, we all live in a dense network of social relationships, and the fabric can twist and rend in horrific ways. Those who see some plausibility in the suggestion that parental controls be instituted are, I think, reacting against the atomization of modern society: Because we no longer support each other in the way we used to (and the way we may be biologically designed) that therefore we must find some other way of giving people the support and encouragment (or discouragement) that was once given by neighbors and elders.



Now this is probably the only thing you said in your post that I agree with! ;)



Well, yes. Times and circumstances change, and it is the blessing of intelligence that we can react to those changes in subtle and ingenious ways. But we must not confuse institutions and practices in our proper urge to fix things. It may take a village to raise a child, but the government (federal or local) is not a village, and the secretary of Health and Human Services is not my grandmother. To suggest, even by implicit comparison, that they are is, IMO, grotesque and inhuman.

Now that I am an adult I dislike playing "Mother May I." I moved out of my parents' house because I didn't want them making my decisions for me anymore. To exchange a parent for a bureaucrat is to make a mockery of the idea of adult independence and responsibility.


But the government is meant to be an extension of ourselves and our beliefs, is it not? Is not meant to be a tool with which we can regulate our society? It seems to me to be a great waste of resources if we are to not use it to do just that.

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
Okay, it's expensive for me to post while out of the country, and so I have ignored everything except my own "Maxie Goes To Greece" thread.

I hope you budgeted for that post Maxie - I think someone is going to be sweeping several floors in Europe to pay for that giant!

Glad you could make the effort - I was wondering if you'd have the time, and what you would slap onto the table. I for one was not disappointed...


1. Practicality: Tolstoy said that every happy family is happy in exactly the same way, while the unhappy are unhappy in their own unique fashion. Even allowing for a novelist's right to hyperbole, I think he's on to something. How can a social worker or psychologist who is responsible for dozens of cases be obviously better at judging the ability of one family to make this kind of decision than the family itself?


Looking at the practicalities - yet, without any established parameters, I don't see how valid the last point is. I agree that all cases are different, but we have no established level of control from the social services. How can a social body be able to judicate specific cases better than a family? In the same way the police, doctors and judges do. In the end it would be simply another element to our society which does have powers to over-ride our human rights. I also find that the family itself - in most cases - is the worst to make a choice. In fact, this is often where stems the problem - parents believing they know better than those educated in the field, whether it be a teacher, doctor or social worker. Families are too close to the issue to be impartial - someone else has to.


2. Social: Simple justice requires that all be subject to this approach. But the wealthy (or even the middle class) will successfully resist such a regime. Money always does. Therefore, either only the poor will be subject to this regime -- in which case it will apply to people on the basis of economic position, not parental fitness. Or a massive soci-economic leveling will have to occur, of the kind practiced in Cuba, North Korea, and behind the late and unlamented Iron Curtain.


That's a fair point. Again the practical side for a such a radical change is a real humdinger. I don't know all the answers but I agree this would be a real problem. Suffice to say if such an alteration was implemented, it would have to be in a way that no one class would be missed. Yes, I agree that could be impossible, but we have such holes in our justice system and medical care. They are unavoidable, but legislation would have to be tough as this is such a contentious issue.


3. Choice: A woman, it is held in progressive circles, has an unalienable right to control her own body, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. That right is abridged when she no longer has the right to conceive or carry a child to term at the time and in the circumstances of her choosing.


This is where we get into real hot water. Certainly the whole issue is a no if you're pro-life, and if you're pro-abortion - or simply for the rights of women over their body - again it's a no no.
It does interfere with a woman's to choose what she does with her body. Well, perhaps not so much in the same sense. Most disputes (well, all so far) are post coital - once there is a physical embryo to have an issue over. We are talking about being stopped from getting to a point where there is another life to have issue with.
This comes back to whether you believe in whether society should take us beyond instinctive behavior. I think it should. There is a drive to have children, a clock that keeps the race ticking away. The clock is not rational, in fact, it will leap beyond reason simply to get it's way. This is again why you could argue there is a need for an adjudicator outside the potential parents. Someone who is not controlled by the clock and can assess the situation.


4. Dignity: The creating, nurturing and raising of children is the deepest and most profund task a human being can undertake. It is humanity's greatest expression of its creative urge.

I agree. Which can also be a reason against this point. Something so profound shouldn't be taken so lightly.


We not only can give birth (even cockroaches can do that) but are artists in the making of a person -- an intelligent and independent being. When this goes wrong, it is the greatest of tragedies, and the kind of tragedy that motivates those thoughtful people who have supportive things to say about controls. But to say that people cannot be trusted with this vital task is to say that they cannot be trusted with the important things, only with the trivial.


Some tasks go beyond the control of the individual. When we look at society as a body we expect more for it's members than we would if human's lived as an animal state. We don't live so much in a culture where the strongest survives - we look to try and give our youth an equal chance. It's certainly not a perfect system we have, but it's the aim that counts.
So it comes down to whether you believe that the comforts and fairness that society gives us - and protects us - are worth the cost to our natural right to procreate? Sorry to get all 'Rousseau'!


5. A parallel argument: It has already been observed that many problems of child-raising stem from screwed up families. That suggests the easiest way to prevent such problems is to prevent screwed up families from forming. In other words, the control should not be at the level of the having of children, but at the level of mating. The battery of tests being contemplated should be administered at and after the adolescent stage, and directed at the choosing of life partners. In other words, the government should have the power to tell you who you can date, who you can screw, and who you can marry. That would clear up most of the follow up problems. Do I hear any takers?


Well like with any change you can take it to it's ultimate limits. Often we fall into pulp sci-fi land or something close to the Outer Limits (like, er, pulp sci-fi - get to the point S!). Change always brings fear of a social Domesday - yet it never seems to happen.. ;)

Since the 15th-16th Century man has always seen apocalypse going hand in hand with change. There was a social chain in society that went from God down the ladder to the local peasant. Break the chain - let the peasants revolt - and anarchy would destroy the land. Even now we all have the same sort of fears. Technology and society changes - and we all hanker to what was, fearing what is to come (ask your local grandpa Simpson - things were better in his day!).

How right wing the changes are depends how the social reform was actioned and to what extent it was decided someone was unfit to be a mother. Would it be only a small group of people? I'd like to think so. It maybe that it wasn't a final decision and after enrolling in some sort of parental programme (something I think ALL parents to be should have to do!) they could be allowed to proceed. I'm not setting limits, just looking at possibilities that set us away from the course we are on. I'm more for moderation myself, but something needs to be done.


6. Simple outrage: Here I join the emotional chorus. Just who the hell are you to think that you or somebody else has the right to run my business for me? It's the technocratic urge run amok -- the intuition that because an engineer can build a better bridge than I can, then an engineer can build a better family. This is to confuse families with computer networks, people with robots, and society with a traffic grid.


Surely the question is just whose business it actually is. In the end it's the unborn child. If you are not ready to become a parent, then your mistake will burden a child's entire life - for that reason I'd say the step is not entirely yours to take. For something that could affect someone so critically, there needs to be someone outside the sphere who can see things in a calm, neutral perspective.


7. False choice: "Right vs. Privelege" is a false dichotomy....
Is eating a "right" or a "privilege"? It can be treated as both: One can have the "right" to sustenance, but one can also forfeit it (as when food is diverted to those even needier). The better answer is to say simply that it is a human necessity subject to social complications, but is not itself a social construction. Similarly with children: Species procreate, whether we pretend to legislate on that fact or not. And although that activity can be regulated in various ways-- as can eating -- it cannot be reduced to, cannot be held to be nothing but a legal arrangement. Otherwise the "right" or "privilege" of having children has no firmer foundation than the "right" or "privilege" of driving on the right hand side of the road, and is similarly subject to the whim of the legislator.


To me it's a matter of looking a parenting as a right - the right of the parent to do what it wants regardless of the circumstance, or privilege - the unselfish privilege for being able to bring forth and educate a child and allow it prosper - regardless of your needs. The idea of privilege focuses on the child's rights rather than the parents, and I think that the philosophy that we should strife to look towards.
To take the car analogy, you have no "right" to drive on the right hand side of the road as such. That mixes us legislative rights with personal ones. You are privileged to have been given the "right" to drive on the right side of the road. The same would in essence apply to parenting. You are privileged to have been given the right to raise a child.


Of course, we all live in a dense network of social relationships, and the fabric can twist and rend in horrific ways. Those who see some plausibility in the suggestion that parental controls be instituted are, I think, reacting against the atomization of modern society: Because we no longer support each other in the way we used to (and the way we may be biologically designed) that therefore we must find some other way of giving people the support and encouragement (or discouragement) that was once given by neighbors and elders.


Oh, I disagree with this. :) Times have never been better. I don't think any past culture can beat what we have now. Are society has grown, and more importantly are ability to travel has exploded. We are no longer tied to close knit communities. Yes we have lost the 'neighbours' and 'elders', but we have gained a network of justice which comes in moderation. Even if we look back to the Victorian Age of the British Empire (19th Century) we see close communities, ordered families, structured polite society.... which hid the largest period of child prostitution, child labour, beatings, abuse... all in close communities. No one dared stand out and be impartial as there was no escape for the mass. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to be as contentious as I am now.

What I'm looking at is less a governmental bill, but a change in philosophy from the people. That won't happen without slow change to social legislation. We need to get away from this fear of parental reform. It is the next stage in society - for the child to come before the needs of the parent. We preach it, but we don't see it - and I've seen a lot of parents who shouldn't be given the immediate rights of children. Some just needed educating - something I think every parent should be forced to have. Let's face it, no one shows us how to be a parent this side of Oprah. There are critical mistakes parents make which could be avoided if educated by professionals.

I have seen cases where it would take more than education for the parent to be. The damage has already been done when they were kids. They would never become decent parents who would look after their kids as they never had the privilege of experiencing that themselves - and so the cycle continues unabated. It needs to STOP. Or we need to try.

Education is the first step.
The second is a slow move to a new philosophy - the child is what is what's important. Be thankful of your fortune to be a parent. Never forget the child must come first and apply what you've been taught.
The third step? Well that's the difficult one. Strong powers for social workers to battle post pregnancy.
Should we then legislate further beyond that? I'm tempted, but as I said, all should be in moderation. We can never cure society, but we can do better by our kids that what we offer them at the moment.

Well it's almost 3am - apologies for any grammar errors - I hope it flows as it should (and you can always trust Maxie to keep you on your toes! :D )

[Maxie Zeus]

It's probably going to be a week before I can get back to this. It must suffice for now to say this:

Every argument I have seen in favor of government regulation of procreation can be used as an argument for the complete regulation of a person's life. By the logic I am seeing, you should go check in with social services before you do anything. Why? Because a wrong decision could screw up your life, and that's the worst thing you can ever do to yourself. I mean the "Mother May I" line in all seriousness. It is sheer, unbridled arrogance to think that you can run someone else's life better than they can run it.

[randomguy]

Mama Mia SSJ, now THAT was interesting. I'm finding perusing this thread to be very enlightening indeed. Just a couple of thoughts.

Surely the question is just whose business it actually is. In the end it's the unborn child. If you are not ready to become a parent, then your mistake will burden a child's entire life - for that reason I'd say the step is not entirely yours to take.

I'm not sure about that. Even if you seem unfit to be a parent, that does not mean that your child will nessecarily be burdened for life- I stand as living proof of that. I feel that since we do not possess precognition, and no amount of analysis can tell us the future, that any decision we can make in a possible child's future would be presumptuous. The only person who can say for sure is the child in question- to make a decision in their stead would, in my mind, be disrespectful.

For something that could affect someone so critically, there needs to be someone outside the sphere who can see things in a calm, neutral perspective.

Do we really want someone in a calm, neutral perspective to be making the judments on issues as personal as childbirth? Some matters in life are very emotional in nature, and they must be acknowledged and treated as such- is there any which fits this description more than parenting? After all, we don't reproduce for practical reasons. Yes, there is the biological side of things, but I think the emotional aspect is the more important and pressing reason that we do this parenting thing. I don't honestly feel that a calm, neutral person who relies on largely analytical thinking can truly have an appreciation for what potential parents are really capable of. On something which is as inherently emotional as childbirth, I don't feel that we can realistically leave the decision to a third party. Parenting is emotional stuff. Solving it through neutrality is impossible.

Oh, I disagree with this. Times have never been better. I don't think any past culture can beat what we have now. Are society has grown, and more importantly are ability to travel has exploded. We are no longer tied to close knit communities. Yes we have lost the 'neighbours' and 'elders', but we have gained a network of justice which comes in moderation. Even if we look back to the Victorian Age of the British Empire (19th Century) we see close communities, ordered families, structured polite society.... which hid the largest period of child prostitution, child labour, beatings, abuse... all in close communities. No one dared stand out and be impartial as there was no escape for the mass. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to be as contentious as I am now.

Ay Caramba! Now, admittedly, I'm only sixteen years old. I haven't been on this Earth very long, and I'm still assessing the situation every moment of my waking life. But I feel this is an unreasonable thing to claim. Times have never been better? Depends on your perspective. Is no longer being tied to close knit communities truly an improvement? What if it comes at the price of local color, of the family unit, of the very idea of indivuality? A good friend of mine said a couple of weeks back that subculture died with the internet. I think that kind of illustrates my major problem with your claim. Like you said, we can travel faster and communicate better than ever before. But this is not free. Our world becomes smaller, our cultures become more intertwined and begin to lose their identity, and even the underground becomes a mainstream unto itself, comfortably classified and organized. Every human being all shares the same background, and conformity, instead of starting at the family unit or at the school, begins upon the moment of birth. We're all surrounded by the same Starbucks' and shopping malls. Raised in the same environment there is only so much variety that can exist amongst us. They don't have to force conformity on us because the world we grow up in is already so conducive to it. The local businesses and the folk lore can no longer survive, they are pre-empted of existence by their inability to exist in an easily packaged, marketable world. We become less human and more humanity. Less individual people and more a mass. A network, as you said. It's certainly more level and consistent (although it leads to an unprecedented sort of disillusionment), and some might consider it a societal evolution. I don't. In moving beyond our impulses and the close-knit units ingrained in our brains, we cease to be human and become a computerized, efficient unit. I worded that whole thing VERY poorly, but no words can really express how I feel about our current situation, leading into the future. I think that's the best I can do.

The second is a slow move to a new philosophy - the child is what is what's important. Be thankful of your fortune to be a parent. Never forget the child must come first and apply what you've been taught

Absolutely right. The child IS what's important. But who speaks for the child? The teacher in your parenting classes? The government? The parents? Only one person can speak for the child, and that's the child itself. We cannot comfortably speak for an entity that doesn't exist yet. To do so is presumtuous, I believe. Perhaps our focus should be on helping those that are already here, providing them with the education, food, and shelter they need. As for future children, let the chips fall where they may, and make sure the child is covered when they get here.

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by Clayface
[color=burlywood]I don't agree. If you are to become a doctor in this country, you must prove your worthiness. You have a large responsibility as a doctor, and thus you have to go through years of training, and follow all the government imposed regulations. IMO, being a parent has just as much if not more responsibility involved. Why then, can any schmoe have a child without similar training and regulations?

Because your heart weighs more than your head. In those complicated exceptions that happen that I mentioned were such a nuisance earlier, someone might have the drive to want to raise a child, but for whatever complicated reason in the bookworm department the permission results turned up negative.

I see the debating going back and forth, and my only reaction to it is, if only we could take the heart needed to do the permission job and put it into those potential parents. THEN the choice of giving them permission or not would be a no brainer! Of course that just brings the whole 'importance of good parenting' thing back up again and we start all over! Eeep!

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
It's probably going to be a week before I can get back to this. It must suffice for now to say this:

It is sheer, unbridled arrogance to think that you can run someone else's life better than they can run it.

Your travelling does put you at a disadvantage here, I won't write another essay here suffice to repeat the point that an objective assessment - will always be more accurate outside the sphere of involvement. If you are part of a problem it is difficult for anyone - regardless of the qualification to be be objective. As an example closer to all our experiences, in matters of love, I'm sure we've all been friends of someone doing something inherently wrong in their love life. No matter how hard you try and explain what's going on, or what's going wrong, the friend will not see it - or will not want to.

Emotions cloud judgement.

When emotions are involved - as the are with the parenting, logic and rationality are naturally flawed. That's why someone else is needed to help assess issues.
With all respect, I think it's arrogant of the parents to assume that they are going going to be able to make logic and unbiased decisions when faced with an emotion and biological need.

I'm not saying emotions are bad. The love of a parent is the most important thing in the world, but we need to look at education of parents to they have a chance to put that love to good effect, and like with a child, if a parent isn't deemed ready for the task, then perhaps they should be disuaded at the least.

Originally posted by Randomguy

I'm not sure about that. Even if you seem unfit to be a parent, that does not mean that your child will nessecarily be burdened for life- I stand as living proof of that. I feel that since we do not possess precognition, and no amount of analysis can tell us the future, that any decision we can make in a possible child's future would be presumptuous. The only person who can say for sure is the child in question- to make a decision in their stead would, in my mind, be disrespectful.


I'd never suggest the argument is clear cut and I agree this is the most contentious points. Many people have coped and thrived from bad childhoods. Many artists have come from poor backgrounds. Some of the greatest influences in society never had a perfect life. Yes, society has gained much from those who have suffered. I still think looking for a better background for our kids is a good idea.

I've re-edited this paragraph several times as I don't wish to get caught up with personal issues and make some poor assumptions. :) In the end, I think that even if we overcome bad parenting (I don't know what your personal history is - this is a general comment) - does that mean that we shouldn't look to stop kids having to suffer as one might have themselves?

we are not looking at altering children, or selective breeding. If you are stable and able to support a child (and been educated in some of the do's and don'ts - I am for educating parents to be) - then that's what we are after.

To allow people to have the best years of their life. Bad parents mean so many kids have to grow up to fast. I'd like to see us trying to stop that .

We can't guess what their future will be - where their path will take them, but we can make sure their route is firm and stable from the beginning.


Ay Caramba! Now, admittedly, I'm only sixteen years old. I haven't been on this Earth very long, and I'm still assessing the situation every moment of my waking life. But I feel this is an unreasonable thing to claim. Times have never been better? Depends on your perspective. Is no longer being tied to close knit communities truly an improvement? What if it comes at the price of local color, of the family unit, of the very idea of indivuality? A good friend of mine said a couple of weeks back that subculture died with the internet. I think that kind of illustrates my major problem with your claim. Like you said, we can travel faster and communicate better than ever before.



This is a topic unto itself. I'll list a few reasons and I'll let people draw what they want!
Culture is something always changes - you can't stop that. We have made a sacrifice to our small communities, but we have gained the ability to travel and experience things that common man will never have dreamed of even 60 years ago. Those without money can now see the world.
We live in a society which allows women the vote, equality in work, help to the poor and care for children and the abused. We have more rights than ever before - is this not better? We care for the disabled, have fairer laws - we are more tolerant of skin and sexuality. Sure, it's not perfect but you wouldn't get this approach even half a century ago.

Ignore what the media tells. We have it better today than any other time. Appreciate what we've got and strife to make it even better! :)

[The Guard]

You all seem to be missing the most important point! Which is that it's WRONG to imprison an animal!!!

[randomguy]

Emotions cloud judgement.
When emotions are involved - as the are with the parenting, logic and rationality are naturally flawed. That's why someone else is needed to help assess issues.
With all respect, I think it's arrogant of the parents to assume that they are going going to be able to make logic and unbiased decisions when faced with an emotion and biological need.


Well, I'm actually with Maxie. To have some person outside the sphere telling you how to live your life and whether or not you can raise a child, simpy because they're a government agent and have been "approved" for such matters, would be, to me, enormously arrogant and disrespectful. It's a violation of basic human rights. Things like driving and being a doctor are poor analogies- they are not inherently a part of the human condition like parenting is. My two cents. Or, at least, part of it. 1 cent, I suppose. The other one, is, like I said, I think childbirth is extremely emotional in nature and cannot be handled logically. Trying to approach it from a logical angle is using the wrong strategy. Yes, parents are emotional and biased- but both are part of making the decision to raise a child. I think the very idea of trying to work childbirth down to something logical, unbiased, and based on analysis is, honestly, very disturbing.

And, SSJ, my personal history is that I'm adopted. My adoptive parents are very good at what they do (so it's not that I'm the result of bad parenting), but I am still the biological byproduct of rape. That's a very, very evil act, but on the other hand, I'm here because of it. And I'm very glad of that. So, obviously, it leads to a lot of conflicted emotions. It's the big factor in me wavering back and forth on this issue.

I'm not even gonna touch the societal/cultural/modern times thing. That's a whole 'nother can of worms, and I figure I can't even begin to discuss it until I've recovered from this thread- sometime in 2005, I predict.

You know, I'm too young for this.

[James]

Originally posted by randomguy


Well, I'm actually with Maxie. To have some person outside the sphere telling you how to live your life and whether or not you can raise a child, simpy because they're a government agent and have been "approved" for such matters, would be, to me, enormously arrogant and disrespectful. It's a violation of basic human rights. Things like driving and being a doctor are poor analogies- they are not inherently a part of the human condition like parenting is.


Again we go to human rights and we have to ask whose human rights are we more concerned about? The prospective parents or the child. We have to remember we have no child in the picture yet so we are not taking a life by preventing one being born. Parenting is a job beyond all other jobs and we should be very careful who we allow to fullfill the post.

Any other important job requires screening, interviews and education but parenting - the most critical and pivitol role you can have - requires, erm, none of the above.

The emphasis should be on parents seeing the importance of parenthood - and that such a job will require outside help - and not that it's something they can do whenever their emotional baggage demands it. I do think that there should be stronger ties outside the family to local support groups. Parenting is practically a mine field and as I have said, we ask for no education of parents, parents will need help.

We all do. Because when you are involved - when you love - you don't always see the clear picture.


And, SSJ, my personal history is that I'm adopted. My adoptive parents are very good at what they do (so it's not that I'm the result of bad parenting), but I am still the biological byproduct of rape. That's a very, very evil act, but on the other hand, I'm here because of it. And I'm very glad of that. So, obviously, it leads to a lot of conflicted emotions. It's the big factor in me wavering back and forth on this issue.


Rape I don't think we could ever prevent - again another topic in itself. It's a complicated issue. Suffice to we are look at preventative methods. If a preganancy comes through an evil deed I think that's another situation as we have a life to consider and the well being of the mother.
As I said the issue we are looking at would be situations where there was no embryo - in your case, we are in a different ball park which I presonally do think it comes down to the mother's choice in whether to carry on the pregnancy.


I'm not even gonna touch the societal/cultural/modern times thing. That's a whole 'nother can of worms, and I figure I can't even begin to discuss it until I've recovered from this thread- sometime in 2005, I predict.


I think that's another facinating topic which I hope to see pop up in the cafe someday!



You know, I'm too young for this.

No you are not. Never to learn. I love these debates as I learn so much about the people in this community. I've also learned myself.

It helps me - and you - to delve deep into ones self and ascertain what it is you believe on a subject. These posts question what you think you feel. They force you to sometimes reconsider or even look at alternatives. Sometimes they strengthen your convictions. Either way, we all learn from each other. I've certainly found elements of the argument that I feel less comfortable even though I still support the argument of more social involvement in parenting.

We may not always agree with on issues, but we open ourselves to the possibilities that nothing is clear cut. I don't think you are ever too young to give input - as long as you aren't so brash as to ignore others! Something I've not noticed in this thread.

I must say that it's an honour to be able to post threads like this where absolutely everyone behaves and treats the topic with the consideration and thought it deserves. I don't know anyother board where I'd feel confortable postingin such debates without fear of flame wars.

Peace,

[Maxie Zeus]

A large part of me does not want to revive this topic, especially since every reply to my post requires and deserves attention. But let me see if I can concentrate the discussion. Allow me to act professorial for a moment.

The structure of the pro-regulation argument can be put simply:

1. Anecdotal reports: It is observed that certain particular people, whom the arguers are acquainted with, have blighted the lives of themselves and those around them, and have onerously burdened society, by having children.

2. Sociological generalizations: Government agencies, with the help of the social sciences should be theoretically able to determine which persons in society are capable and deserving of bearing children; the social traumas associated with "poor parental decisions" are overwhelming.

3. THEREFORE: There is sufficient reason to believe that the having of children should be regulated by the state.

I proposed a parallel argument, one which was thoroughly misunderstood. I'll give it again.

1. Anecdotal reports: As with the original poster, my anecdote comes from my own family. One of my cousins recently contracted an unfortunate marriage. The family told her that he was wrong for her; that she was throwing herself into a certain maelstrom; that no good would come of it. He was a drop out, chronically unemployed, a proven liar with a long record of substance abuse. She, for her part, was a recent high school graduate. But she ignored them. Of course, the family had no legal recourse to prevent the marriage, and dutifully went along with it, hoping that a show of support would make her life easier when things went kabloom, as they inevitably would.

And they inevitably did. Within two weeks she had to get a restraining order against him, and initiated divorce proceedings. In the meantime, he had taken all her money, and what property he couldn't steal he destroyed.

She was actually quite lucky. Her mother used to be a legal secretary, and her father is an ex-policeman; they knew exactly what needed to be done, and did it, to get her out of the mess as quickly as possible. And because they had chosen to support her in the marriage, she was blinded by false pride when she decided to pull the plug.

2. Sociological generalization: Everyone in high school probably knows a dozen such stories, and knows the havoc that they can wreak. People destroy or throw away educational opportunities and job prospects because they are stuck in a bad relationship that they cannot find a way out of. They are burdened by unwanted children (even when they, the parents, are not obviously "bad" parenting material). Most of the social wretchedness of the inner cities can be traced to people contracting bad relationships simply to survive, and thereby getting sucked into substance abuse, crime, and unwanted children.

All this could be avoided, if only the government required people to take "relationship classes" before they started dating, and approved applications before people were allowed to date, sleep with, and marry each other.

3. THEREFORE: There is sufficient reason to believe that the government should vet all non-platonic relationships before they are allowed to begin.

-------------------

Discussion: The two arguments have independent conclusions, yet share virtually identical premises; hence if someone advances or is persuaded by the first argument, he or she should advance or be persuaded by the second. In short: If you think the government should regulate parenting, then you ought to think that it should regulate teen and adult relationships, even those not involving children.

There are only three possible responses to make these juxtaposed arguments. (1) Accept both conclusions; the government should regulate both the nursery and the bedroom. (2) Reject both conclusions; the government should butt out of both. (3) Explain why there is a relevant difference between them; that is, explain exactly where it is that the two arguments differ, so that it is possible to accept one conclusion but reject the other.

Your assignment: Say which of these responses is your own. If you choose the third response, you must not only explain why the parenting argument differs from the relationship argument, such that you accept the former but not the latter. You must also explain why you reject the relationship argument; i.e., you must explain why you think, despite the social and anecdotal evidence given, it is a bad idea for the government to be regulating our romantic lives.

Pedagogical point: The point of this parallelism is NOT to claim that regulation of parenting will lead to regulating of relationships, but that the reasons for regulating parenting are already at this moment reasons for regulating relationships; you must already (if even implicitly) believe that the government should possess a key to the bedroom. The point of the challenge is to discover if in fact you believe this.

If you choose either of the first two responses, then the debate is over. If you reject both arguments, then I win. If you cheerfully accept that Washington (or Westminster, depending on your location) not only has a place in the bedroom, it has a more important place than you do in the bedroom, then I don't know what to say to you.

If you choose the third response, and follow the assignment, though, we may be able to focus the debate on where the key differences lie. This is especially so if you state why you reject the idea of regulating relationships, as it will reveal where common ground lies.

[James]

How far should the preventative go? When the couple want kids? Or do we go to the root of the problem.

While I agree with what you said in route 2, that we can detect the majority of bad couplings at high school, we end up looking at two very different targets.

The first premise, targets the child. It will be a minor, it has no one to speak for it. The parents are adults. Therefore the need of the minor comes first. Somehow - and I don't know how or to what extent - we need to look at how to protect that potential child to the best of our abilities. Stronger regulating of parents is an possible answer, in the end however, we are simply looking at how we can bring society's - and parents in particular - attention to child rights and not the parents.
I've heard ill educated or simply arrogant people declare that social services (teachers, social workers, police, doctors) to butt out because it's their kid and THEY will bring it up as they see fit. This needs to be addressed before we look at the governmental position. The need for social interaction shouldn't imposed, it should be expected. We all need help with such a difficult and righteous task, we shouldn't be protective - we require assistance. How far that assistance extends is another matter.

On the second premise we are looking more at the stage prior and thus dealing with the rights of the parents, not the potential child. We are still looking at the same people. As Maxie says, we can normally see mismatches a mile off. Again they are normally either ill educated or arrogant. Education is out of the question as the feelings cloud their judgement - as they will later on with the issue of children.
I could offer personal anecdotes on this category too and I wish there was a way to stop people making mistakes in relationships. To make them see.

I don't think there is.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try and educate both scenarios.

Which do I stand on? Well, from a practical nature, I think the first premise has stronger ethical and practical grounds. Not as far as strong governmental involvement. That's a practical nightmare. But certainly the issue of the child holds more ethical need for intervention than a parents.

Is there no way we can combine the two in moderation?

Relationships need help as much as parents. Anyone who disagrees is simply too involved in a relationship and probably requires the help most of all ;) (light hearted comment don't start wailing!) - we all need help as both lovers and parents are so close to any problems that arise it is hard for anyone to see clearly. Perhaps both people in relationships and people who are involved in pregnancies should be in mandatory education and help services.

All this will have no ground though until people admit that love is not something as perfect as on the Hollywood screen. That there is no perfect EASY love - it all requires hard work. There are more people out there - the person who goes to your school by co-incidence is the one and only true love? I don't think so. We need to get out of the film culture and look at both relationships and child support as issues which have no perfect answer and don't work as in the films.

My answer? Moderation in both is logical - however ethically and practically I see more hope in premise one having positive results that premise two.

Didn't see the option to be interested in both? ;)

Seriously, I think as issues go, we have to look at how severely people feel that EITHER should be implemented. It's easy to say we need to govern the right to have children, but to what extent do you target plausible action? Likewise for the second premise. I think that is where we will find the issue lies....

[Maxie Zeus]

You haven't answered my question. So I'll put it bluntly:

I want to date Betty -- possibly with an eye toward developing a serious relationship. Should I be required to get the government's permission before I do this?

[Mad Scientist]

Our precious homeland is going through a downward spiral with next to hope on the horizon.

I think it's time we move to Canada...

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
You haven't answered my question. So I'll put it bluntly:

I want to date Betty -- possibly with an eye toward developing a serious relationship. Should I be required to get the government's permission before I do this?

Sorry mate, I thought I had (in a round about sort of way)! :)

No I would think that's excessive, partially as it inpinges on the rights of two consenting adults and secondly because I can't see it doing any good. I've always found relationships become deeper if you oppose them, regardless of the potential future...

As I said, I agree it's a point where, if possible, any outside 'policing' could stop a great deal of trouble later on, but I don't think it would do any good or be possible to impliment.

As I said, the best I think you could go to at this point is setting up counselling for every couple to make sure there is some outside input and help with the relationship - I think that would do more good that it would do harm....

[The Flash]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
I want to date Betty -- possibly with an eye toward developing a serious relationship. Should I be required to get the government's permission before I do this?

That's an easy one for me to answer... No! Why should anybody have to ask the government to do something like that? The day we have to get permission from the government to develop a serious relationship with someone, is the day I shoot myself in the head.

Oh, I just realized how politically incorrect that was. Did I offend anybody? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by SJJ
As I said, the best I think you could go to at this point is setting up counselling for every couple to make sure there is some outside input and help with the relationship - I think that would do more good that it would do harm....

I think that'd do more harm then good. There is an agenda in everything, there'd be an agenda in that counseling. I am a conservative, (isn’t it obvious? :D) I don’t want some liberal counseling me about my love life. I can’t really express my feelings about the rest of it in words, other then I think that it’s damn wrong.

"A government that is big enough to give you anything you want, is big enough to take away everything you've got."

A previous president said that, I forget who, but it's a great quote.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by SJJ


Sorry mate, I thought I had (in a round about sort of way)! :)

No I would think that's excessive, partially as it inpinges on the rights of two consenting adults and secondly because I can't see it doing any good. I've always found relationships become deeper if you oppose them, regardless of the potential future...

As I said, I agree it's a point where, if possible, any outside 'policing' could stop a great deal of trouble later on, but I don't think it would do any good or be possible to impliment.

As I said, the best I think you could go to at this point is setting up counselling for every couple to make sure there is some outside input and help with the relationship - I think that would do more good that it would do harm....

Okay, good, we're on the right track. :)

I note two things.

First, your objection to relationship regulation is practical. Is there a moral objection, too? That is, suppose a social scientist swore up and down that he had invented a test to determine which couples should and which shouldn't be together. And that only a few billion a year would be enough to set up the bureaucracy/ police bureau that would enforce its decisions. Suppose this was enough to overcome your qualms about its practical application. Would you accept such regulation as a good and necessary thing? Or would you still have qualms -- moral qualms about whether such interference is justified?

Second, I note that there's been a subtle shift from regulation to counseling. I suppose we can all agree that couples and parents can all use advice and counseling, and that some need it more than others. The disagreement is whether this counseling is to be enforced by coercive methods. Do you force people to undergo this kind of counseling, and to get permission before having a child (or, in the parallel case, marrying someone)? And what do you do if they have the child (or the marriage) without leaping thru these hoops? Do they lose the child (or are forced to get a divorce)? Do they go to jail? In short, to what extent does this regulation or counseling become a police matter?

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

First, your objection to relationship regulation is practical. Is there a moral objection, too? That is, suppose a social scientist swore up and down that he had invented a test to determine which couples should and which shouldn't be together. And that only a few billion a year would be enough to set up the bureaucracy/ police bureau that would enforce its decisions. Suppose this was enough to overcome your qualms about its practical application. Would you accept such regulation as a good and necessary thing? Or would you still have qualms -- moral qualms about whether such interference is justified?

::Sits back into hot seat::

Hmm.
That is a difficult one. Do I feel a moral objection? The question seems more abstract now, trying to picture how I'd feel juxtaposed to the benefits....

If we are assuming that we can say objectively that the said project could do it's part, then yes. With the knowledge it was infallible, then yes.

People live under the false belief that they are unique. They are not. We have different backgrounds maybe, but the character building blocks are more predictable than any of us would like to believe.

People wouldn't like it - and people now would be appalled, but then sometimes for a better life, we need the help of something other than imbalance between the needs of our loins to our brains...

We think we are the best to determine who is right for us, but as history has proven we are more often wrong than right. A way to actually do the same job but correctly should never be passed up!


Second, I note that there's been a subtle shift from regulation to counseling. I suppose we can all agree that couples and parents can all use advice and counseling, and that some need it more than others. The disagreement is whether this counseling is to be enforced by coercive methods. Do you force people to undergo this kind of counseling, and to get permission before having a child (or, in the parallel case, marrying someone)? And what do you do if they have the child (or the marriage) without leaping thru these hoops? Do they lose the child (or are forced to get a divorce)? Do they go to jail? In short, to what extent does this regulation or counseling become a police matter?

Yes, there has been more of a shift. The reason I like these debates as they help define my principles.

I know that I feel that parents alone are ill equipped to handle the pressures of parenthood. It's a struggle for all.

I know that we labour as a society under that the parent knows best. Tell the child named 'it' that.

Therefore, there needs to be external help both practically and in our social acceptance of the values of parenting.

I know that's how I feel, it's a matter of determining the specifics and that's where I find these talks help. It seems logical that all people require counselling. I appreciate Flash's point about people's hang ups with counseling, but what I think is needed is a mixture of hands on help and guidance - for everyone. Some people may find that they get little out of it, while others depend on it, but at least there is someone external involved who can get past the internal struggles within the unit and keep an eye on the child's safety.

I don't like the term government involvement. We are not talking FBI here, we are talking social services, doctors etc. No one goes to jail. I think the only penalty is the child being sent for adoption if the parents don't meet a criteria. The criteria wouldn't be harsh, but there to sift out the extreme cases, where it is clear from the offset that the mother and father can't cope mentally or even financially.

I'm not looking to punish, or chastise, but a method of closer monitoring and stronger social powers that lessen the rights of the parents to do what they want with their kids. I suppose I'm looking at a strong social reform. All our countries need to do this and the sooner the better..

Phew!

[randomguy]

We think we are the best to determine who is right for us, but as history has proven we are more often wrong than right. A way to actually do the same job but correctly should never be passed up!

Ah, SSJ, you're very articulate... but I disagree with everything you say. Not to be rude, of course, I have the utmost respect for you.


Just stay away from my home. ;)

[James]

I do come across as rather right wing :) (despite my more liveral nature!), but it's all hyperthetical. It's a scary concept but it has the up side...

To me if Maxie was suggest a perfect way to ascertain if a relationship was to cause grief and pain I see no problem with that. We have warnings on the side of food packets or on cigerette packets, when not metaphorically on the side of potential partners?

"This partner will damage you're health, you future childs and possibly others you love. They'll also steal your cash, stay clear."

A dose of common sense really rather than right wing. Most people would jump at a method of finding decent partners - that's the positive side to the method!