|
|
|
|
|
Profitable Conversationalist
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:11 pm
|
|
|
|
Some of the ideas in this thread reminded me of this news story from the UK that I read awhile back.
Basically, social services planned ahead of time to take away this couple's baby because they determined that the mother wasn't smart enough to raise the baby, despite the fact that she only has mild learning disabilities.
I know people who are intellectual, intelligent, and financially stable, who are HORRIBLE parents that shouldn't be allowed to raise a dog, let alone a child. I also know of people who are a little on the slow side, but that are loving, caring, capable mothers and fathers.
I don't disagree at all that the planet is drastically overpopulated, but I just do not see a good way (realistically speaking) to enforce who can and can't have children. Smart doesn't mean you're a fit parent.
I'd say that we really need to be focusing on educating women, particularly in developing nations, but it's hard to do so considering some of the oppressive regimes in those countries. Most countries don't appreciate foreigners coming in and telling them how to run their nation.
On the complete other side of the coin, in developed nations you have idiotic members of government bitching that women aren't popping out more babies, and yuppies lobbying the government to pay for their In-vitro fertilization treatments.
It all just seems rather hopeless. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:17 pm
|
Profitable Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:34 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:20 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:13 am
|
|
|
|
A lot of people are crying and moaning about freedom, and free will, and how they'd leave the country if the government said who can and can't be a parent, and all that. Do you guys not realize that we already do have laws about who can be a parent and who can't?
We might not tell someone that they can't get pregnant in the first place. But we do tell people that they can't keep and raise their children if they prove that they are not fit to.
The thing is, there are often warning signs when someone is going to be an unfit parent. I'm not necessarily talking about anything extreme here. We don't even have to change the definition of "unfit parent." I'm just saying the government could do some things to prevent child abuse in cases where we are pretty darn sure it's going to happen if we don't step in.
For example, let's say a couple is on welfare. They had three children. All three of them were taken away at different times for different incidences of abuse. The husband has also been accused of child molestation.
Now do you honestly think that couple should have complete freedom, should be able to reproduce again, should be able to abuse another child, and should not have to worry about the government stepping in?
Or would you rather the government say they are not allowed to have anymore children? Or maybe that they are not allowed to have anymore children unless they attend counseling and parenting classes? Maybe even job seminars or classes so they can get better jobs?
In my opinion, telling a child abuser that they can't have another child (at least not without counseling and classes) is just common sense. It's just like how we don't let convicted felons carry guns.
Obviously I would like to take it a step further that that. But that's just my opinion, and I don't expect everyone to agree with it. But I do expect everyone to agree with the government stepping in to stop or possibly even prevent extreme cases of child abuse. This is not an anarchy. People are not 100% free to do whatever they want to whomever they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|