Felice
“There’s always a bigger fish.”
Felice:
Part of the trouble that people have with what you seem to think is a reasonable proposal is that you keep skirting the most important issue: Who would come up with the criteria and how? It is extremely naive to declare that race, economic status, etc. would have nothing to do with the selection criteria. A standard test of “good parenting” would inevitably be biased because the definition is impossible to arrive at. There are many ways of being a good parent, just as there are many ways of being a bad one.
The other problem with your plan is that it wouldn’t work. All people would have to be sterilized before puberty or they could just go right ahead and have children without taking the test. Your plan says that such children would be taken away by the state. Tell me how vast numbers of institutionalized children is going to improve society? Agreeing to return them if the parent takes and passes the test wouldn’t work either–the damage is already done.
The second reason it wouldn’t work is that most “bad” parents could probably easily pass the test. You don’t set out to be a bad parent, it happens for any number of reasons–job loss, mental disorders, who knows. These things could crop up at any time.
I’d be interested to know if anyone who is actually a parent favors a plan like this. Personally, being a parent has taught me that we are all just human beings doing the best we can. It’s hard to ride a moral high horse after the first time your toddler falls and bumps her head because you were distracted for just a second.
And finally, do you really want to live in a world where the government can force you to have unwanted surgery–essentially convicting and punishing you for crimes you haven’t even committed? A comparison to Nazis is too mild in this case, in my opinion.
Cher3 said:
I freely admit that I do not have any plan for coming up with the criteria for being a good parent, or how such a plan would be implemented. I don’t see that as being the most important issue, however. Let me try to rephrase it.
Felice
“There’s always a bigger fish.”
I guess I’m of the “people are basically good, until they prove otherwise” school of thought. Also, the “my body, my business” school of thought.
I know some very good parents who would have never passed a home study for adoption. Their kids are wonderful. It pains me to say this, because when I heard they were expecting, I was of the “of all the people to breed” naysayers. I was wrong (hate to admit that). They now can’t have any more kids (diabetes), and would like to adopt. They never will be able to. He’d be OK, but she likes to put her foot in her mouth, and their politics, lack of religion, housekeeping skills, income level and child rearing philosophies won’t pass muster with the social worker.
Also, home studies are expensive. I would guess that they are significantly more expensive (mine was in the $3000-$5000 range, varies by state, and how you add it up) than the costs of removing children from homes. In the era of limiting government, and “my taxes are too high” who would pay for this? (Adoptive parents pay for the majority of expenses. There is currently a tax credit, and some employers have benefits, but the majority of the burden is on the parents)
And its easy to lie to a social worker. We didn’t. We were honest about spanking and faith, which almost cost us a child. I know a lot of parents who have just lied (usually about little things that wouldn’t matter anyway, but you get nervous doing a home study). Of course, the test could be written, but that would discriminate against people who don’t test well.
The other difference between adoption and birth is the limited commodity aspect of adoption. With so many parents wanting children, and so few (healthy white infants) children available, we can place restrictions on who can adopt, it can be argued that we need to. It is interesting to note that as the availability of children increases (say older non-white special needs international children) the definition of “good parent” starts to slip.
The best part about being adoptive parents is that you’ve carefully examined the idea of being parents, you really have to work at it. As its been pointed out, there are no “unwanted” adoptive kids. We joke that no one woke up one morning and discovered that they were halfway through their home study. I’d like to see everyone educated about parenting the way adoptive parents are – preferably through classes starting in elementary school. There should be no surprises at how much work it is! And we should make sure that family planning is funded!
(The next best thing about being adoptive parents is -unless you have bio kids as well - your kids can live under the impression that their parents have never had sex).
I know there was no offense meant with the “pair of morons” remark. I just hear it a lot, and no one stops to think how it sounds from the other side.
Just the thought that some of you can take this idea seriously scares the daylights out of me. Felice, let me know if you are ever voted into office, so I can start making plans to leave.
Not in any way my intention, Akatsukami, and I sincerely apologize if I gave that impression at all.
**Cher[/]b, you said
Interesting that you automatically assume that I don’t have a child.
I don’t think the “momentary lapse” argument hold water. It’s obvious that people do stupid or inattentive or irresponsible things on occasion. It’s when they become a habit that problem arise.
The question in the OP, as I understand it, is not about morals or who should determine fitness for parntning. The question is, “Do people have an inherent right to breed at will?”
If it were only a personal issue, there would be no question. Unfortuantely, your personal decision to drop a sprog also affects me. It’s no longer your life your decision affects, it’s mine too. If you can’t afford a kid, I get to give you your welfare payments. If you abuse your kid and put her in the hospital, odds are good that I’ll get to pay part of the bill (even with insurance). If you don’t educate your kid I get to hand him his welfare checks because he doesn’t have the skills to work anywhere but MickeyD’s. If you do drugs in front of your kids, I’m the one who gets shot when they need money for their addiction.
Conversely, I benefit if you raise your kid well. Even if he grows up to be a Republican. That was a joke.
No one is an island. As long as we have a society, we’re all part of it, and what affects you affects me.
-andros-
Quote:
“Do we, as a society, have a responsibility to ensure that all children are cared for by
‘good’ parents? And, collaterally, do we have a responsibility to ensure that no children
are given into the custody of those who are not ‘good’ parents?
(‘Good’ to be defined at a later date and time.)”
Well, I still contend that these questions are unanswerable until you define what you mean by “good.” Children can be given every physical comfort and social advantage by parents who never lay a finger on them in anger and still be damaged by emotional abuse. A parent can go for many years (like the woman in the other thread)with no problems and make one fatal mistake.
However, my answers are: We already do, to the limits acceptable in a country that values individual liberties.
Explanation: As I said above, you cannot convict people for crimes they have not committed, which is what denying children to “potential” abusers does. We have many social institutions in place which try to prevent abuse, starting from birth. For example, at the hospital where I had my daughter, we were required to watch films on baby care and to bathe and care for the baby under the observation of a nurse before we could check out. If she had observed any reluctance or severe ineptitude on our part, they could have required counseling before releasing the baby into our custody.
Families are under scrutiny by schools,doctors,neighbors,other family members, and the law. If my child isn’t properly restrained in my car I’m liable for punishment. If I don’t enroll my child in school or show that I’m providing a viable alternative, I’m liable. If my pediatrician or my child’s teacher thinks there’s something rotten going on they can report me.
Programs for educating parents can be improved, I’ll freely admit. We can also address the economic and social ills that lead to abuse. (Like why that stalker boyfriend had a gun to wave around, but that’s another can of worms.) But that is about as far as a democratic society has the right to go.
Felice,
You said
Well, not exactly. The difference is that a child who is up for adoption is already in state custody and becuase of this, the state has an obligation to see that the child is placed in a suitable home. A child that is born to me is in my custody, and it is up to me to provide a suitable home.
But your statement is a bit confusing. you seem to be talking about children who are already born, which is an entirely different matter than screening people pre-conception.
The state,as far as I know, has no interest in a child that is not yet concieved.
“I should not take bribes and Minister Bal Bahadur KC should not do so either. But if clerks take a bribe of Rs 50-60 after a hard day’s work, it is not an issue.” ----Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Current Prime Minister of Nepal
To have children is a right. To raise them is a privilege (they can be taken away if they are abused). The reason raising them is a privilege and not a right is the interaction of the parent’s rights with the child’s. For the parents, it’s their bodies, they can certainly breed if they like. But once the child is here, he/she has rights as well, a right to a life reasonably free of abuse and neglect.
You can’t prevent them from having a child because you think they’ll do a lousy job, anymore than you can give someone a test and then prevent them from moving around on public roads because you think they’ll do something bad. Being able to move around on public roads is a right; driving on them is a privilege. Who knows who will make a good parent before they have any kids? And how would you feel if you were never allowed to have children?
Now, someone who has, say, abused the children that they have had but swears they won’t do it again…then you have a certain amount of history to go by. I tenatively favor strict monitoring of the situation and strong suggestions that they not have children (make sterilization and birth control avaliable for free) rather than forcible sterilization. It is their body, after all.
I think society has a responsibility to protect the rights of children; not by preventing them from being born into situations we may dislike, but by taking care of them once they’re here. I think slythe’s idea of mandatory parenting classes is a great idea, too. Might cut down on teen pregnacies as well, once kids know how much work it is.
Dangerosa said:
That would certainly be a good start. I think that you are agreeing with my point: that we should ensure those who take care of children are good parents.
Sam stone said:
Not a helpful comment, Sam. What’s your point? What is your opinion on the question I just posed? And what makes you think I don’t hold office now? In case you hadn’t noticed, no individual can force anything on anyone else in this country. That’s what living in a democracy means.
cher3: I think that’s irrelevant. Parents who feed and clothe their child, but subject it to emotional abuse, are not good parents. Duh. Everyone makes dumb mistakes. Duh.
You’re right, we do have some institutions in place to ensure children are cared for. These institutions frequently fail, which is why juvenile crime and child abuse are at the levels they are, but that’s another story. So you’re agreeing with the statement that society has a responsibility to ensure children are well cared for.
What I proposed is that we require prospective parents to demonstrate that they are willing and able to care for their child before they have one. We require that of adoptive parents, as Dangerosa said. Why do we not require that of all parents?
And by the way, what makes you think I don’t have kids?
Felice
“There’s always a bigger fish.”
For once, I agree with Freedom and Techchick. Partially for reasons of rights and privacy, partially because I simply can’t believe it would be possible to implement this proposal without a large number of good people being unfairly denied the right to have children simply on the grounds of not meeting some arbitrarily-set government standard.
Gay people in most places could certainly kiss their right to procreate goodbye.
Point well made, Gaudere. But what about fetal alcohol syndrome? Crack babies? People on fertility drugs giving birth to severely handicapped litters (McCauley’s, etc)? Still a matter of “it’s their bodies?”
-a-
Gaudere said:
Now, why is having children a right? I mean, the instant you conceive a child, you are committed to raising it. Therefore, by Gaudere’s distinction, the privelege of raising a child follows immediately upon conception. (Please, all, let’s leave the abortion argument out of this!) I will agree one hundred percent that having sex with a consenting partner is the right of any adult. But having a child? Why is that an automatic right?
Felice
“There’s always a bigger fish.”
Andros:
I wasn’t assuming that you didn’t have children. What I said was I’d be interested to know if anyone who did favored the plan in question. It’s every “good” parent’s nightmare that they aren’t doing well enough by their children. Not many parents I know would have the hubris to assume they could tell everyone else in the country how to do it right, especially if the consequences for failing the test were strapping the person down and slicing out their reproductive organs against their will.
Nobody supports letting habitual child abusers get away with it, but the plan you and Felice are supporting wouldn’t help prevent that for reasons I’ve already mentioned.
Should we have the right to breed at will? Yes, because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
Should we have the right to raise (or fail to raise) children any way we want, regardless of their welfare? No, and we don’t.
These are two separate questions.
[
[/QUOTE]
. But what about fetal alcohol syndrome? Crack babies? People on fertility drugs giving birth to severely handicapped litters (McCauley’s, etc)? Still a matter of “it’s their bodies?”
-a-**
[/QUOTE]
When Baby Surprise was on the way, I got damn sick of the espresso jerk at Starbucks saying “lets make that a decaf latte.”
Yes, my body, my business. And if I’m eight months pregnant and want a glass of wine with dinner, that’s my business too. There is no evidence that that ONE glass will cause any problems. And if I’m a raving alcoholic - well, maybe you should carry the baby, if you think you can do it better.
Its a slippery slope - so much can go wrong with a pregnancy - and so often Mom gets blamed for eating too many Doritos (or whatever the “pregnant women should avoid” item of the day is). Have you ever seen a list of what pregnant women should avoid?!? They can be quite long, and they don’t even agree with each other.
We don’t force people to abort fetuses (feti?) with Down’s Syndrome. We have to face facts that not all babies are born healthy and have whatever societial fixes in place to deal with it.
Sorry about the quotes, going to have to learn how to do that.
I think people have a right to do what they choose with their own bodies, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Not the potential rights; the actual rights of a person. It’s too flippin’ hard to pin down when a fetus becomes a person with rights, as we well know. I’m trying to avoid the abortion thing, but it’s sneaking in. What if the sterilization fails; then are you forced to have an abortion? Is it acceptable to force invasive surgery on someone because you think they might violate the rights of someone who doesn’t even exist yet? Is it acceptable to take away their newborn child because they might be lousy parents?
That’s a tough one, andros, and I won’t deny it. Perhaps a distinction can be made that mothers doing crack definitely will harm the child, and the possibility that someone may be a bad parent is a good deal more nebulous. But I really don’t think we can infringe on people’s right to have control over their own bodies enough to permit forcible sterilization for something they might do. So, crack babies: the best I can say is education about the effect on the potential child, drug programs, free sterilization offered. For fertility drugs: what the heck are the doctors doing, prescribing drugs that give people handicapped babies? This seems to be a problem with the doctor or the drugs, not the parent. I doubt the parents said, “hey, I’d like 13 handicapped babies!”
Yes. Next question?
You’re absolutely correct.
But I sure can tell you how to do it incorrectly. Is it hubris to want kids to go to school? Is it hubris to want parents to pay attention to their children? Is it hubris to want parents to try to avoid sucking on the ol’ crack pipe? No, no, no. Again, there are certainly some standards that all can agree on–it’s not a matter of morality. For all I care you can raise your kid as a Satan-worshipper, if you feed, clothe, educate, pay attention to, and care for him.
Inflammatory, and inaccurate. Again, no one said anything about genital mutilation. Ain’t science wonderful? There’s such a thing as reversible permanent birth contol. Wow.
Habitual? How about any? Screw first offense. “It was a first offense” doesn’t make people less dead.
As I said in the pit, I don’t fool myself into thinking any plan of this nature would work.
And there are those who would be more than happy to argue that the consequences of unchecked breeding are also too horrible to contemplate. Do people have an obligation to consider others before they drop a sprog?
In theory, anyway. :rolleyes:
-andros-
Concisely stated, Cher, thank you. But you needn’t be so violent, you know. Nobody said anything about slicing out organs, and I don’t think I ever stipulated that the penalty for not being a good parent was to be vivisected. Norplant, a mechanism for TEMPORARY, REVERSIBLE sterilization, is about a twenty minute procedure, done in a doctor’s office and sealed up with a band-aid. In fact, as I mentioned earlier that has been court-mandated for poor parenting- not as punishment, but to enable the woman to engage in her right to have sex without incurring the responsibility of additional children. But that’s by the by.
ruadh, nobody ever said anything about ‘arbitrarily set government standards.’ For crying out loud, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT We already impose arbitrary restrictions on parenting behavior: you must feed your child, you must clothe and shoe him, you must educate him, you must not hit him with a stick, etc., etc., etc. And if someone demonstrates that they cannot meet those restrictions, we revoke his privelege of raising that child. And, we already DO set standards- high standards- for prospective parents, as Dangerosa testified. So why do we not impose those same standards on parents who are raising their birth children? We’re not talking about requiring everybody to be Martha Stewart here. More elemental things. Can you afford to feed and clothe a child? Do you know how to care for an infant? Do you know how to maximally ensure a child’s safety? Do you understand how to manage your anger in ways that will not harm your child? Do you have access to a support network to care for your child while you are at work? So on.
Been on those. The problem isn’t with the drugs, its with the fact that humans weren’t meant to have litters. Many fertility patients choose to deal with this through “selective reduction.” A good doctor reviews the risks and brings this up before you start shooting up the Fertinex. Some doctors won’t touch you until you agree to selective reduction of four or more fetuses because of the potential liability.
The real issue with the drugs (off-topic, but educational) isn’t their affect on the baby(ies) but the fact that we really don’t know what they are doing to the woman (i.e. does their use increase ovarian cancer risk).