Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ADreamer
    Offline

    ADreamer Banned Sock-Puppet

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    24

    Children - right or privilege?

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by ADreamer, Oct 18, 2015.

    First try and keep it civil please. I won't hesitate to report any anti or pro abortion bashing mindsets, or anything like that.


    Personally children should be a privilege. There's more than enough stories of abuse, neglect, etc. to turn one's stomach on a nearly daily basis and such behavior is either dealt by the child's biological parents or by foster / step parents because the biological parents aren't fit to be parents [had their kids taken away from them].

    One friend of mine mentioned that parents should be screened and given a license to have kids and I agree. If you don't have the economic, social, or mental stability to look after yourself - what are you offering a child?


    To those that say kids are rights ... what rights do the children have born to drug abusers so desperate they'll sell their own children out as little prostitutes [and yes, that has happened many times]? What rights does a child have as the abusive father or mother breaks their bones?

    It's not as if humans are in danger of becoming extinct - there's 7 billion of us, and our numbers are growing every year. And in some way animals are brighter - I mean, no insult to anyone, not even insects reproduce without food and Africa isn't the only country where starvation / hunger [1 in 7 Canadian kids for example go to school hungry] is a problem.
     
  2. Acanthophis
    Offline

    Acanthophis ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    Canada
    Here's a scenario: say a husband and wife barely have enough money to feed themselves due to a slow economy and one being unemployed. Let's say there are already laws in place which deem them unfit to look after a child. One day, the wife finds out she's pregnant. As the state, here are your options: fine the parents for breaking the law, knowing that they can't actually pay the fine; kill the child (abortion or post-birth); or take custody of the child and put it up for adoption. Which do you do? If the children are being put up for adoption, then you aren't really solving the problem, because people will keep reproducing. I guess you could terminate the pregnancy, but then you're violating the woman's rights to her own body. You're really only stuck with fining the parents, which is useless because they can't even help themselves financially. You could throw them in jail, but that still leaves a child without a home, and two people being cared for (well, as much as you can be behind bars) by the tax payers.

    I don't think it's a matter of children's rights. What right did I have to be born, when I would be discriminates because I'm gay? What right did the paranoid schizophrenic have to be born into the world with said mental condition? What right did the physically disabled have, being born without functioning arms? Every child is going to have problems in life, and yes it's horrible that some are abused, or some are put into slavery; but outright banning reproduction to keep the population under control probably isn't the right way to go about solving these issues.
     
    No-Name Slob likes this.
  3. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,997
    Likes Received:
    5,506
    A right.

    I'm not saying that we don't need a better way to make sure that parents are competent and doing the job--and, by the way, more ways to support parents in doing the job.

    But as soon as we start licensing parents, we're going to have privileged groups getting their licenses as a matter of course, and non-privileged ones not getting them. My understanding is that various US government agencies are STILL snatching the children of Native Americans, based on invalid grounds.

    There is no reasonable way for this to work.

    Edited to add: And even going this far in the discussion assumes that there's some way to prevent unlicensed pregnancies.
     
  4. pyroglyphian
    Offline

    pyroglyphian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    42
    Licensing would be a disaster, so I'd have to opt for them to remain a right.
     
  5. Chinspinner
    Offline

    Chinspinner Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    1,019
    Location:
    London, now Auckland
    A burden.
     
    KhalieLa and Void like this.
  6. ADreamer
    Offline

    ADreamer Banned Sock-Puppet

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    24

    more ways to support parents in doing the job. - My grandmother raised eight children on her own. She worked three jobs. Asked for nothing from the government. There were days they went hungry, certainly. However, unlike the every growing number of incompetent parents who are having children and going immediately onto welfare she was more than capable. Or the children having children - my cousin works in a welfare office in the UK the number of pregnant teenagers that get everything paid for is disgusting because it does not support any further education of the mother at all [not to mention it supports her prompting her children in later years to get on welfare].

    I know of entire generations on welfare - grandparents, parents, and young adult children [who at the time I knew these slobs, were having a baby of their own... nothing wrong with them outside of the fact all of them were drunks & drug abusers]. My father worked social services - or akin to the welfare office - he can tell you of plenty of "parents" whom would use up their welfare cheques on booze and drugs and then come begging for more because they wanted to pay a birthday gift or Christmas present for their children.

    I mean there's obviously something wrong with the support when the people who need welfare [there was a war vet a few months ago who had to sell his metals otherwise he was out of his apartment and on the streets starving to death but welfare wouldn't take him on] are overlooked for families who are breeding like rabbits - there are dozens of families on welfare with 5+ kids in the UK because each kid is not a child but just more $$ on the pay cheque - on welfare.

    I mean there's obviously something wrong with support when Mike Harris in Ontario a couple years ago suggested that people on welfare should be tested for drug & alcohol abuse and receive trades or basic office training so they could get off of welfare was pretty much laughed out of the House of Commons... and I doubt he's the only politician that has made similar suggestions over the years.

    I mean there's obviously something wrong with the support when the US wastes more money on welfare than China. China uses 1/4 the welfare money because it is an utter devil of a time to get that support instead of being handed out hand over fist - and the US has almost 1/4 the population of China.

    Welfare if you were unaware was meant for people who were suffering due to lack of jobs [wartime & depression for example] - not slobs scamming the government so they can suck down a 24 pack of beer, sitting on their ass 24/7, and laugh at the foolish tax payers.

    And really if you need support to be a parent - why are you a parent? If there was no support systems in place - what are you offering your child? Very little if not nothing.


    My understanding is that various US government agencies are STILL snatching the children of Native Americans, based on invalid grounds. - it depends on what you deem invalid. Unfortunately, due to the whites and their residential schools the aboriginal culture is rather ruined. Drug and alcohol abuse is rampant in a number of tribes, and that is not taking into consideration violent crimes and sexual abuse.

    Due to growing up under abnormal conditions thanks to the whites a number of residential school survivors think nothing of such abnormal behavior happening to their children - as would be the case for any child growing up in an abusive household. A close friend of mine, both her parents went to residential school, she was routinely raped in their house by whatever male happened to be visiting [including relatives] until she was 15 years old and hitchhiked to her grandparents whom lived off the reserve. Not a single person - tribal or government alike - did a thing to stop this and it started when she was 6 years old.

    How about the countless aboriginal children & teenagers whom are found "floating down the river" as the last case a couple months ago in Winnipeg.

    But do go ahead with that idea - as I mentioned on the aboriginal genocide post my uncle is aboriginal and I know quite a bit about them - having grown up amongst aboriginals since by the time I could walk - and know quite a bit more than the stuff spouted off in the news.


    we're going to have privileged groups getting their licenses as a matter of course, and non-privileged ones not getting them - India has taken to sterilizing the lower class because there is literally not enough food to go around. Are you to tell me, when the population reaches a certain amount - when food is so expensive because of it the average person can't afford food - that'd you be "alright".

    And of course you'd get privileged groups doing so - goes without say. Just as how privileged groups are overlooked when they cause crime, or scam, etc., etc., etc. It is part of life in a way. I mean right now if you have enough money you can make yourself a designer baby. And if you are unaware PGD [or designer babies] are legal in a number of countries.


    discussion assumes that there's some way to prevent unlicensed pregnancies - certain chemicals released into something as simple as food or water can render a woman temporarily infertile. So yeah there's more ways than you'd think to keep control.




    There are women who use abortion like the Pill now. Pregnant - let's get an abortion.

    As for the options you supplied by the state - easy enough. Fine parents, abort or adopt out child, sterilize parents for not obeying law. Simple.

    Many don't know that during the 30s through to the 60s the Canadian and American governments both were doing this. They were sterilizing mentally unstable people / physically disabled people and sterilizing people whom were in jail.


    I guess you could terminate the pregnancy, but then you're violating the woman's rights to her own body. - oh? Then what of the rights of the girlfriend or wife of a rather abusive man who beats the shit out of her and causes her to abort the child because of that. There's many women beaten so badly by their partners they loose the child. I volunteer at a woman's shelter, some of the stories will make you sick to your stomach.

    two people being cared for (well, as much as you can be behind bars) by the tax payers - aside from a mental health aspect, prisoners are well cared for in jails. They get three square meals a day, television, toys, entertainment, exercise, they can make money, they can get their education fully paid for, etc. There's a reason why you have repeat criminals - because they'd rather cut off their own arm than go back to normal society and the sh*thole life they were living compared to the life of riley they got in jail. My brother works corrections - one of their prisoners were so desperate to stay in jail the guy literally committed suicide in the holding cell while waiting to be released to day after.


    I mean there was a case just recently where a woman who basically murdered her child because of her drug abuse. This 6 week premature baby had the synthetic [illegal] drug in his lungs, in his bloodstream and in his heart. He lived 1 hour. This same woman had had FOUR children taken away from her beforehand because she was incapable of taking care of herself - her drug abuse, etc.

    That is but one story - I could give you a list of such behavior ten miles long - and you're still going to say it's a right.
     
  7. pyroglyphian
    Offline

    pyroglyphian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    42
    You'll just open up a black market for unadulterated food and water.
     
  8. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    Here's what one woman thinks...

     
  9. Acanthophis
    Offline

    Acanthophis ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    Canada
    Eh, no, I wouldn't. I don't have any stance on the matter. I just threw a hypothetical out there that legislators would have to deal with if they went ahead with passing a law preventing certain people from reproducing.

    You didn't actually provide answers to any of the things I threw out there. Telling me there are women now who go through abortion is not a solution - that is their choice, it's not being forced upon them. Telling me that "we used to sterilize certain people" isn't really a solution to dealing with people against the law. We also used to keep Japanese-Canadians/Americans in internment camps - should we return to that? Telling me that there are men who abuse their girlfriend's bodies so badly that they are unable to reproduce is, once again, not a solution (I'm not even sure how it's relevant). Telling me that life in jail isn't that bad is, once again, not a solution. You're still having to deal with taxpayers paying insane amounts of money to keep a breeder imprisoned.

    I'm going to take a stance on the matter now. Aside from abusers and other violent people, you're playing a very dangerous game when you start telling people with certain backgrounds that they are unfit to reproduce. Who decides where the threshold is - who decides how mentally unstable or physically disabled someone has to be to have their reproduction abilities outlawed. Should people confined to wheelchairs have their reproduction rights revoked? After all, they can't go up the stairs easily if their child starts crying for whatever reason. What about people suffering from PTSD - surely they're unfit to have a child, I mean, they can't even get over something that happened to them years ago!
     
  10. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,997
    Likes Received:
    5,506
    Indeed I am. Because your dystopian proposal is far worse than the problem it claims to solve.
     
  11. BrianIff
    Offline

    BrianIff I'm so piano, a bad punctuator. Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    Canada
    @ADreamer , if your proposal came to fruition, what would happen to women who become pregnant that don't have a license? I know tonnes of people who shouldn't be having kids, but look at the orphanages in Romania when Ceaucescu banned abortion. Are you proposing forced abortions?

    ETA: Okay, I see you say either abortion or hand them over to whoever, but to make such a proposal, you should get into detail about the practical side of it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2015
  12. DaManofwar
    Offline

    DaManofwar New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2015
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Ireland
    In all honesty, determining if children should be a right or a privilege is just as bad as abusing them. It is labeling them as a person's property, and not human beings. Like slavery.
     
  13. No-Name Slob
    Offline

    No-Name Slob Contributing Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    1,232
    Likes Received:
    925
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Vonnegut wrote a short story about a dystopian society years after reproduction was banned, called Welcome to the Monkey House. It's very thought provoking. You should read it, if you're interested in the topic.
     
  14. No-Name Slob
    Offline

    No-Name Slob Contributing Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    1,232
    Likes Received:
    925
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Also, my husband feels this way, too. Except he thinks there should just be classes people have to take, and they shouldn't be able to have a baby before the age of 18. I don't think that he feels we should go as far as to evaluate people's income status, but he definitely thinks people should have to pass a psych evaluation. I'm not sure how seriously he takes his viewpoint, or if he sees it as more of an idealistic "if only" scenario.

    Personally, I think giving any government that kind of control over it's people -- the control over basic human instinct and survival of the species -- would have catastrophic consequences.
     
  15. NigeTheHat
    Offline

    NigeTheHat Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    581
    Location:
    London
    So... do you have 2 accounts here? Because Aire said that, not you:

    I mean, I don't think that's a problem, but it's nice to know who we're talking to.

    Personally, I'm with @No-Name Slob's husband on this one, though I don't think it's realistic. I don't see how it'd be possible to set up any kind of screening program that doesn't end up in dystopia.
     
  16. X Equestris
    Offline

    X Equestris Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Right. The government deciding it knows best is a fast lane to a dystopia. I mean, lots of governments can't even take care of themselves, and they're suddenly supposed to be able to regulate the reproduction of their populations? Such a proposal is a bureaucratic nightmare in the making, ripe for abuse, and to top it all off probably won't solve anything.

    Especially with your dystopian proposal. Come on, lacing food and water with chemicals? Seriously? Congrats on proving all those conspiracy theorists right, and enjoy the violent revolutions that would likely occur due to such practices.
     
  17. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,997
    Likes Received:
    5,506
    Firefly. Pax. That went well.
     
  18. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    So I am a total newb to politics, but I think libertarian describes me best.
     
  19. AlcoholicWolf
    Offline

    AlcoholicWolf Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    Moldova
    How dare you, how DARE you tell me or anyone else using your own bigoted logic what I or anyone else can or can't do with their own body. How dare you indeed. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in North Korea where the government does sterilize, imprison and execute its citizens.
     
    outsider likes this.
  20. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    A more peaceful solution: How about severely limiting one's contact to the opposite sex until they are deemed "fit"?
    I'm not saying I agree with it, but I think it satisfies both groups of people. And there would be no forced abortions, adoptions.
     
  21. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    Yuck.

    No.
     
    pyroglyphian likes this.
  22. Acanthophis
    Offline

    Acanthophis ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    Canada
    I don't think re-implementing segregation is going to work. >.>
     
    No-Name Slob likes this.
  23. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    My experience with Christianity shows a virtual segregation instituted by the church. When those kids get freedom at uni... :superlaugh:
     
    Chinspinner likes this.
  24. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,997
    Likes Received:
    5,506
    Yikes. Essentially imprisoning the ENTIRE POPULATION--because there's no way to ensure that men and women don't interact without essentiallly imprisoning them--satisfies which groups of people?

    Well, no, not the entire population--we'd just have to imprison half of them, right? Imprison all the women, restrict their freedom of movement, their ability to do most jobs, confine them to their homes. There's precedent for that, after all.

    Oh, but we're only imprisoning those who aren't "fit". Got it. So we'll imprison, oh, ten percent of the population of both sexes. In camps or something. There's precedent for that, too.

    No.

    Also, no.
     
    No-Name Slob likes this.
  25. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    And here's a prominent feminist who wants to put men in concentration camps:

    http://www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/9/7/an-interview-with-julie-bindel

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page