should those wanting children be subject to means tests ?

excaliburhc

i am just wondering how come there is no controls in place for having children ?

there are no psych exams to see if you are fit to raise a child , no means test to see can you afford the child , no examination of where you live to make sure it is child safe , nothing that i am aware of .
i am just wondering why this is ... when to adapt a child you have to meet a lot of criteria - you are vetted / means tested the lot all out of concern for the child ?



http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/adopting_a_child.html

the only reason i can come up with is maternal instinct 0 however that is not always the case - take the woman on trial for partying in america who is suspected of killing her child.

personally i am of the opinion there should be controls on who can have children as not everyone is a fit parent .i blame their parents for the amount of scumbags we have on our streets now .

this is just something that i have never been able to get my head around.

thanks

mackg

And just how do you propose we stop them?

wild_cat

Unless we have sterilisation at birth that can be reversed when some one has passed "the child bearing test" unfortunately it can't be enforced.

It could also be used in an unscrupulous manner by evil politicians etc.

loveisdivine

I totally agree. If you have to meet certain criteria to adop then it should be the same to have your own child.

How do China enforce their one child only law? Must be a logical way to do it.

TheZohanS

There are lots of people out there that were complete and utter messes before they had kids and ended up sorting themselves out completely once they had a kid.

7sr2z3fely84g5

surely the state had a part to play in this scumbag risings,yes there is feckless parents out there,then the state takes cares of the kids,but often there's numerous reports of them falling into drug addiction/in and out of prison because there is no facility here to look after some.

wild_cat

loveisdivine wrote: »

I totally agree. If you have to meet certain criteria to adop then it should be the same to have your own child.

How do China enforce their one child only law? Must be a logical way to do it.

High fines and fear.

mackg

We could always burn the children of unfit parents as an alternative to fossil fuels.

meditraitor

wild_cat wrote: »

Unless we have sterilisation at birth that can be reversed when some one has passed "the child bearing test" .

best idea Ive seen in years.....

tfitzgerald

I think this is a terrible idea

7sr2z3fely84g5

Would means testing/reducing child benefit be an incentive to have less children?.

Bipolar Joe

A lot of of kids in China are put up for adoption, killed or abandoned because of the one child rule. If people are gonna have kids, they're just gonna have kids. I do think there should be some sort of means test, but I'm too dim to figure out a viable way for it to work.

IvyTheTerrible

Yeah and while we're at it, lets also only allow certain types of children too, I particularly like blond blue eyed ones.

Seig Heil! :rolleyes:

Bipolar Joe

Oh, Jesus, someone's invoked Godwin's Law this early?

wild_cat

meditraitor wrote: »

best idea Ive seen in years.....

I'm not purposing it as an idea. That's the only way it could work. No method of sterilisation is 100% guaranteed reversible.

As much as I dislike people having kids for environmental reasons, you can't limit personal freedoms. One of the adopted kids I know, grew into a **** up even though her parents were seen as having passed the test.

flutterflye

Seriously???!

There are so, so many unfit parents out there, but there is literally no viable way to control it, so I don't see the point in the discussion tbh.

mackg

Better yet we could all have sex in a manner similiar to Demolition Man and there would be no risk of unplanned pregnancies. you could then take the parent test at the lab where you go for artificial insemination.

excaliburhc

isnt there a clamp that can be removed ? not sure , but surely there are options - clamp both sexes and only a doctor can remove once provided with proof of license .

i just dont understand how "children are our future" but no care is taken to make sure they have the means and situation to grow into a healthy member of society.

looky loo

TheZohan wrote: »

There are lots of people out there that were complete and utter messes before they had kids and ended up sorting themselves out completely once they had a kid.

In some cases maybe, but in others they have kids and make complete messes out their kids lives.

I'd also love to know how the OP would be able to stop people having sex when out of their minds with drink and ask them to take a means test?

Bipolar Joe

Children are the future so they can attempt to fix all the fucking messes the past generations have made and take care of them in wee granny flats beside their houses.

IrishEyes19

thats dodgy ground there if you ask me. Not only is it going against human rights, Id be wary of who exactly made the final decisions whether I could have a child or not, and who could set the test in the first place.

excaliburhc

yep nice to have the nazi comment in there early.

i am just wondering as i know a girl who has had 4 children but she is more concerned with having enough money to go out on a saturday night then feeding / clothing her children.

i am just wondering if there is a better way .

DjFlin

I think you might be forgetting people who get pregnant by accident. What happens in that situation? I think we'd have to tackle the issues of Abortion before we can really talk about this.

wild_cat

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Children are the future so they can attempt to fix all the fucking messes the past generations have made and take care of them in wee granny flats beside their houses.

Or they can just increase the destruction that we continue to do to the earth with out batting an eye lid.

Bipolar Joe

wild_cat wrote: »

Or they can just increase the destruction that we continue to do to the earth with out batting an eye lid.

That is more likely, but I doubt it's what people mean when they say "Children are our future."

COYW

flutterflye wrote: »

Seriously???!

There are so, so many unfit parents out there, but there is literally no viable way to control it, so I don't see the point in the discussion tbh.

The only realistic way to tackle it is by controlling how the welfare they receive is spent. We all know that there are plenty out there who have children to get the welfare and the child never sees a cent of the money.

I propose that we :

- reduce the monetary benefits for having 3+ children.

- give food stamps to be used in supermarkets instead of cash in hand.

- give books, school uniforms, paid transport to school (if applicable), a proper healthy meal in school instead of giving the parents the cash to supposedly spend on the above.

Artur Foden

I dont see the need to be honest. What should be discussed is a fair and moral system to deal with children who come from abusive backgrounds, or are disabled in some way.

I for one would hate to live in a country in which a system decided who had the right to have children

stovelid

People can suddenly suffer a dramatic reduction of means at any time during their life so how could you predict that?

Plus the people constantly harping on about parents and kids will soon notice if other peoples' children are not around in 30 years time to serve you pints, drive your train and wipe your arse when you're dribbling your last in a home.

pickarooney

Subjecting them to mean tests would be better. Meanybagses shouldn't be allowed have babbies.

Ickle Magoo

Any test would also be assuming that everyones psychology and fiscal situation is static - which is a nonsense. How do you propose to deal with people who passed the test to have kids and then become and alcoholic/drug-addict/unemployed/insert whatever criterion they would have failed on originally here...?

Bipolar Joe

I guess the problem is like that movie, Gattaca. It's sort of eugenics. I do now for damn sure my Mom should never have had kids.

pajunior

Hilarious, reminds me of my dad, whenever he sees a parent doing something stupid its always 'you need a licence to own a dog but any bollox can have a child's'

Always cracked me up.

pajunior

excaliburhc wrote: »

yep nice to have the nazi comment in there early.

i am just wondering as i know a girl who has had 4 children but she is more concerned with having enough money to go out on a saturday night then feeding / clothing her children.

i am just wondering if there is a better way .

Is her name Jacinta?

stovelid

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Any test would also be assuming that everyones psychology and fiscal situation is static - which is a nonsense. How do you propose to deal with people who passed the test to have kids and then become and alcoholic/drug-addict/unemployed/insert whatever criterion they would have failed on originally here...?

Or people that fail and whose fiscal circumstances improve when they are past optimum childbearing age?

It can actually be argued that most people are earning more in their 40s and 50s than in their 20s and 30s.

ShooterSF

excaliburhc wrote: »

isnt there a clamp that can be removed ? not sure , but surely there are options - clamp both sexes and only a doctor can remove once provided with proof of license .

i just dont understand how "children are our future" but no care is taken to make sure they have the means and situation to grow into a healthy member of society.

You realise there are plenty of us out there with no desire to ever spawn a child but quite enjoy sex. Will there be a doctor on call to come round, check we have the necessary prophylactic/pill, remove the clamp and observe us to ensure we execute safe sex before reclamping and heading to the next house?

RichieC

Who the f*ck does any government think it is telling people they can't have kids..

and who are these fascists on here saying they should... kindly eat a gun barrel.

excaliburhc

well current system is you get social welfare which increases with the amount of children you have , not to mention all the other benefits you receive - support , housing and so on . all this provided even if you have never contributed to the state in any way.

if there was a means test then if approved , you can afford to raise a child - which means you are paying tax which means you are contributing , if down the line circumstances change then you get the social welfare - this seems far more fair to me then the current system ,
however i am obviously not a parent so what do i know

it just sickens me that more care is made to see an adapted child is going to asafe home then a child born to family / single parent .

Ickle Magoo

stovelid wrote: »

Or people that fail and whose fiscal circumstances improve when they are past optimum childbearing age?

It can actually be argued that most people are earning more in their 40s and 50s than in their 20s and 30s.

Maybe they can adopt the kids taken off those that now fail the criterion?

Sticjones

I think a means test should be required before posting on boards.

excaliburhc

ShooterSF wrote: »

You realise there are plenty of us out there with no desire to ever spawn a child but quite enjoy sex. Will there be a doctor on call to come round, check we have the necessary prophylactic/pill, remove the clamp and observe us to ensure we execute safe sex before reclamping and heading to the next house?

i believe it is like the snip - just a clamp on the tubes and that is it.

can be removed at a later stage .

to be fair im not proposing this , im just sounding out if i am the only one that thinks there needs to be a change to the current way of operating ,

Overheal

Hmm, this thread hasn't been posted in a while.

Good luck trying to deny people the basic right of a human living being to procreate.

Ickle Magoo

excaliburhc wrote: »

i believe it is like the snip - just a clamp on the tubes and that is it.

Whose tubes? As only men have the snip, is it only men who will be clamped?

k4kate

Maybe the parents of half you negative, cynical posters should have had same test

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

k4kate wrote: »

Maybe the parents of half you negative, cynical posters should have had same test

How do you decide which half?

Eric Cartman

It really should require more . IQ tests , means tests, parental suitability tests and rules like - not being allowed to have children if both parents are on social welfare , not being allowed to have children if theres a history of drug or alcohol abuse , violent crime or sex offences by either parent.

stovelid

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Maybe they can buy adopt the kids taken off those that now fail the criterion?

Fixed.

stovelid

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It really should require more . IQ tests , means tests, parental suitability tests and rules like - not being allowed to have children if both parents are on social welfare , not being allowed to have children if theres a history of drug or alcohol abuse , violent crime or sex offences by either parent.

They should have reverse ones where parents are jailed for producing offspring that write posts like this.

excaliburhc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It really should require more . IQ tests , means tests, parental suitability tests and rules like - not being allowed to have children if both parents are on social welfare , not being allowed to have children if theres a history of drug or alcohol abuse , violent crime or sex offences by either parent.

dont know if i would go quite that far and aslong as any method is reversable then each situation can be handled on its own merit , people have the capacity to change and if wanting to have a child is that catalyst then i dont see the issue but i would believe it would have to be over a long period of time and would probably require social worker visits for the first couple of years along with school teacher input to confirm the child is doing okay.

with regards to the clamp Ickle
i believe it is women getting their fallopians tied have this option but quick look online shows this http://www.fpa.org.uk/helpandadvice/contraception/longactingreversiblecontraceptionlarc

replaced every 3 years - 99% effective - could be scheduled into a doctor exam.

for males there is http://www.gizmag.com/risug-male-contraception/18824/

so there are options - sorry i should have checked my facts more before mentioning clamping.


All though this is only my opinion i am going out on a limp and saying that i guess we all know at least 1 person who should not have had children.

Good thing about boards is that i can at least get other opinions which may provide me with an insight that i cant( due to circumstance and not being a parent) / dont have .


do all the persons against such an idea think the current system works ? do ye believe society has not changed for the worse over the last few years and if not who do ye blame for the issue ? and what would ye do to rectify.

wild_cat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It really should require more . IQ tests , means tests, parental suitability tests and rules like - not being allowed to have children if both parents are on social welfare , not being allowed to have children if theres a history of drug or alcohol abuse , violent crime or sex offences by either parent.

A history of drug abuse could mean being caught smoking a joint once and being caught....


Given I think I know your views on drugs... I know some stoners that have managed to rear some of the finest citizens I've met.

Eric Cartman

wild_cat wrote: »

A history of drug abuse could mean being caught smoking a joint once and being caught....


Given I think I know your views on drugs... I know some stoners that have managed to rear some of the finest citizens I've met.

mate id legalize everything in the morning if i could , sorry let me refine that , a history of drug addiction , takes the minor stuff (weed, pills etc..) out of it