nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is it our right to reproduce a child and can/should it be taken from you?

Lord Trollington

Should there any scenario whereby your right to reproduce should be taken from you?

Kids who dont ask to be brought into the world being born into famalies where they are given no chance at a decent life.

Kids born with parents that are Serial reoffenders constantly in and out of jail , alcohol and substance abusers , rapists and murders.

Is it our right to reproduce regardless of how fit of parents we are or whether we can provide any sort of life for the child?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

stevoslice

no need to start sterilising people or repossessing children.
Legalise abortion and remove the right to a free house for single mothers.

dark crystal

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Of course ,it should be a standard test to see if you can afford to support the child ,make sure you're not a drug addict etc...If you don't have the ability to do so ,you shouldn't be allowed or you can have a child but your on your own ,no benefits.Why should the tax payer pick up the tab?

Do you propose that if by some major calamity, a couple get pregnant (it happens the odd time - life ain't perfect) and they don't have 'x' amount of income, the pregnancy should be terminated?

The population needs to reproduce and every country needs a population. Regulating it so that only the financially well off can have children would drastically diminish that population (it's also madness to claim that welathier parents make better parents.)

Of course it would be ideal if all parents could afford to have children independently of all state help, but that's just not viable in all cases. If the government took more initiative in providing state funded childcare for parents, many more would be able to go out to work and pay taxes. There could then be no excuse for those on welfare not to work.

Even China had to review their one-child policy after it transpired that there weren't enough children being produced to replace the increasing ageing population.

dark crystal

thebhoy wrote: »

no need to start sterilising people or repossessing children.
Legalise abortion and remove the right to a free house for single mothers.

Abortion is legal in the U.K - there's no shortage of single mothers there.

If you take away social housing, where will these children be raised? State funded orphanages? Hostels? The streets?

I hope we never see the day where innocent children are forced to live in degredation because their parents couldn't afford a mortgage/private rental acommodation.....

pablomakaveli

ebixa82 wrote: »

The section of society I genuinely feel should not be allowed reproduce are drug addicts. Yes everyone should be entitled to be parents but nobody should be allowed give birth to a drug addicted child as a result of their parents drug abuse.

This could be most easily achieved by offering the parents some (addictive drug of choice) for a sterilisation jab/implant etc. Highly unethical but there you go...

I think there was a group that actually did something like this. They offered addicts money to be sterilised. Im sure someone put the story up in AH a few months ago.

jackie1974

You can't hold a whole nation to ransom because of the shoddy parenting of some. The simple fact is there will always be addiction, poverty, lack of education etc.. and this is where the solution lies more work in these areas, not licencing reproduction. What about the parents that tick all the boxes on the surface but are total sociopaths at home. All that would happen is lower class people would be targeted and deprived of their rights.

This reminds me of the programmes springing up in the UK and USA that pay drug addicts £200 to be sterilised. I really hate this idea, it's exploitation at it's worst, it just keeps addicts in the gutter and gives no incentive whatsoever to get better. Imagine being a teen drug addict, going through rehab and coming to terms with the fact that you sold your womb. It's like saying 'you're a lost cause because you have an addiction' how would the whole concept of rehab work if that is how we behaved. I'm all for temporary birth control, even mandatory birth control with methodone programmes but permanent sterilisation, no.

Seloth

whycliff wrote: »

Should there any scenario whereby your right to reproduce should be taken from you?

Kids who dont ask to be brought into the world being born into famalies where they are given no chance at a decent life.

Kids born with parents that are Serial reoffenders constantly in and out of jail , alcohol and substance abusers , rapists and murders.

Is it our right to reproduce regardless of how fit of parents we are or whether we can provide any sort of life for the child?

There was a case several years back where a couple both serving life wished to have a child but their right to do so was revoked.

pagancornflake

whycliff wrote: »

Should there any scenario whereby your right to reproduce should be taken from you?

Kids who dont ask to be brought into the world being born into famalies where they are given no chance at a decent life.

Not giving a child a decent life is not a requisite to parenthood. The onus falls on that same child to provide their own "decent life" when they reach adulthood, not on the parents to provide it for them.

whycliff wrote: »

Kids born with parents that are Serial reoffenders constantly in and out of jail , alcohol and substance abusers , rapists and murders.

Child protection custody, adoption etc. Measures which are far less draconian imo.

whycliff wrote: »

Is it our right to reproduce regardless of how fit of parents we are or whether we can provide any sort of life for the child?

You are welcome to try and stop me; you will not enjoy it.

carfiosaoorl

Would you honestly want to give the government the power to choose who can and cant have children?:eek:

You cant go around sterilizing people willy nilly on the off chance that they might make crap parents.

Some of the threads on this board seriously make me wonder

Our government can barely do the job they are meant to do but ye want to give them complete power over everyones lives:rolleyes:

cynder

Read this and then decide if the government or anyone has the right to decide.

http://fromtheold.com/news/social-workers-steal-young-couples-baby-uk-2010012216439.html

Just one of many.

Social services 'to take baby from teenager deemed too stupid to marry'
A mother-to-be, who was banned from marrying after social workers said she is not intelligent enough, is to have her baby taken away immediately after giving birth.

Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, has been told that she will not be allowed to bring up her own child, who she has already named Ben.

Last month Miss Robertson was prevented from marrying her fiancé Mark McDougall, 25, after council officials claimed that she “did not understand the implications of getting married”.

She has now been warned that she will only be allowed a few hours with her baby, which is due in January, before it is taken into foster care.
After hearing the news, Miss Robertson, of Dunfermline, Fife, who is 26 weeks pregnant, said: “I couldn't believe it. I am so upset – I can't stop crying.”

Mr McDougall, an artist, said he wants to take on full responsibility for his son but claims that he is powerless because he is not married to Miss Robertson.

dark crystal

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think there was a group that actually did something like this. They offered addicts money to be sterilised. Im sure someone put the story up in AH a few months ago.

Yep http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=173082

This is one case, where I would agree with 'forced' long term birth control, not necessarily sterilisation. If there is a clear and imminent danger to the life of the child, both inside and outside the womb because of the decisions of the mother, then I don't see a problem with it.

johnmcdnl

don't children in really bad homes like this get taken in by social welfare?? or at least have social workers going round... ??

Coriolanus

Dacelonid wrote: »

http://tinyurl.com/6kd8l4o

I'm on a mobile but thanks for contributing.

we'llallhavetea_old

great idea, lets just leave our entire lives in the hands of the government. wtf.

My name is URL

It's a bit naive to think that people will stop procreating just because the State refuses to grant them a licence, and incredibly short-sighted to believe that it will solve any social problems.

bnt

The idea I had, years ago, was similar to the "procreation license" idea, but it wouldn't be enforced by taking kids away or anything like that. Both parents must take a parenting training course, sit an exam, and pass it. After passing they would have access to child benefit funds.

If that sounds like I'm saying the unemployed are bad parents ... not really, since good parents would have no problem passing, regardless of employment status. On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that the unemployable are most in need of all kinds of training, and parental training ought to be high on the list of "life skills" they need.

The only thing that worries me is: what do we do with chronic failures? Parents who are unable to pass even non-technical tests, due to e.g. illiteracy or mental incompetence? I'll leave that kind of problem to social science professionals, and I'm not one of those.

FreudianSlippers

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Of course ,it should be a standard test to see if you can afford to support the child ,make sure you're not a drug addict etc...If you don't have the ability to do so ,you shouldn't be allowed or you can have a child but your on your own ,no benefits.Why should the tax payer pick up the tab?

Exactly. The test should be equally administered to everyone.

If you wish to have a child, regardless of socio-economic standing you should apply to get a licence. This process involves many factors, including testing maturity level of the applicants, income, savings, employment, home-ownership, stability in the relationship, drug use/abuse, etc.

With regards to the financial aspects, it does not necessarily disqualify you from having children if you are poorer. They are looking at whether or not you have a job, are in a position to not work or what your employment prospects are.

If you make over a certain amount you don't get child benefit payments, between x and y you get child benefit and if you don't make enough (household) including the benefits you'd be entitled to then you are not granted to licence.

hondasam wrote: »

Like I said been wealthy does not make you a good parent. You think every person who wants to be a parent should have a blood test to see if the use drugs.

what happens if you become poor or a drug addict when the child is born ?

Well obviously you can't control that... the same situation that currently applies would apply. If you are unable to care for your children because of your addictions they are taken away.

cynder

bnt wrote: »

The idea I had, years ago, was similar to the "procreation license" idea, but it wouldn't be enforced by taking kids away or anything like that. Both parents must take a parenting training course, sit an exam, and pass it. After passing they would have access to child benefit funds.

If that sounds like I'm saying the unemployed are bad parents ... not really, since good parents would have no problem passing, regardless of employment status. On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that the unemployable are most in need of all kinds of training, and parental training ought to be high on the list of "life skills" they need.

The only thing that worries me is: what do we do with chronic failures? Parents who are unable to pass even non-technical tests, due to e.g. illiteracy or mental incompetence? I'll leave that kind of problem to social science professionals, and I'm not one of those.

No one knows whats going to happen down the line, how many rich dads have murdered their wives and children?

Just because ones state of mind my be good/bad at time of test doesn't not mean 2 years later (or even 1-18 years later (you dont stop being a parent at 18 its life long)) it would be good/bad.

Having kids makes more people grow up and act responsible. I was 18 when i fell pregnant as with 2 months i had a life insurance policy got. I was also unmarried.

scientific1982

curlzy wrote: »

Are you trying to say only women are ****ty parents?:mad: Why is it not up to men to raise their kids properly?

Yeah. Bitchez be trippin.

PrincessLola

OisinT wrote: »

Yes, children can be taken away and often are.

As for actually getting pregnant and having a child, I believe you should have to get a licence before you have a baby. You should be means tested and if you don't get the licence, you aren't prevented from having a baby but you cannot receive any social welfare benefits for said child until such a time that you get the licence... and there's no back-dating either!

So punish the child for its parents behaviour? Thats sick.

EDIT: unless you mean the child is put in care, then thats ok

thebaldsoprano

whycliff wrote: »

Should there any scenario whereby your right to reproduce should be taken from you?

This was tried in Sweden with people suffering from mental illness, then it was expanded to include people with a low income. There's a good film about it called The New Man by Klaus Haro. Needless to say, it didn't end well and later caused quite a scandal.

If someone wants to get themselves sterilised and there's no coercion involved then that's fair enough, but this guilty until proven innocent approach of punishing parents before they've done anything wrong doesn't seem like a good idea.

strobe

Sink The Banana wrote: »

I totally agree with this.And also is you don't have any means of supporting the child you don't get a licence either.There are certain groups in society that need to be sterilized as well

Can we start with the idiots that believe everyone in a certain group are the same as each other? I think it could be quite beneficial to prevent these retarded sh1tebags from being allowed procreate as well.

iPlop

strobe wrote: »

Can we start with the idiots that believe everyone in a certain group are the same as each other? I think it could be quite beneficial to prevent these retarded sh1tebags from being allowed procreate as well.

Most drug addicts are the same and never get back into work ,there are a small percentage that sort themselves out but the majority don't.It's usually a life of methadone for them and as a tax payer I don't won't to fund them.

If this thread was started in 2006 it would be "ahh feck it sure everyone can have kids" Now with such high unemployment ,people have started to finger point and blame the so called spongers ,junkies popping out kids for draining the country's finances ,I have heard people talking about it on more than one occasion in work.

strobe wrote: »

I think it could be quite beneficial to prevent these retarded sh1tebags from being allowed procreate as well

I support my kids and don't ask you for the money

digme

whycliff wrote: »

Should there any scenario whereby your right to reproduce should be taken from you?

Kids who dont ask to be brought into the world being born into famalies where they are given no chance at a decent life.

Kids born with parents that are Serial reoffenders constantly in and out of jail , alcohol and substance abusers , rapists and murders.

Is it our right to reproduce regardless of how fit of parents we are or whether we can provide any sort of life for the child?

if you give the child a birth certificate it can be taken by the state,otherwise as far as i'm aware they can't take it as it's not state property,Although I'm open to correction.

jackie1974

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Most drug addicts are the same and never get back into work ,there are a small percentage that sort themselves out but the majority don't.It's usually a life of methadone for them and as a tax payer I don't won't to fund them.

If this thread was started in 2006 it would be "ahh feck it sure everyone can have kids" Now with such high unemployment ,people have started to finger point and blame the so called spongers ,junkies popping out kids for draining the country's finances ,I have heard people talking about it on more than one occasion in work.

Define 'drug addict'. Is the person that goes out at the weekend and takes coke a drug addict, should they be sterilised ? What about the person that smokes a few joints, should they be sterilised ? Because in that case we'd be sterilising half the friggin country. Or is it just lower class drug addicts you don't want reproducing ?

So it's not childrens welfare you're concerned about it's how your tax euros are being spent. So introduce ridiculous legislation so you can save a tenner in your pay packet

Kelda09

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Most drug addicts are the same and never get back into work ,there are a small percentage that sort themselves out but the majority don't.It's usually a life of methadone for them and as a tax payer I don't won't to fund them.

If this thread was started in 2006 it would be "ahh feck it sure everyone can have kids" Now with such high unemployment ,people have started to finger point and blame the so called spongers ,junkies popping out kids for draining the country's finances ,I have heard people talking about it on more than one occasion in work.

With regards the methadone aspect, it's true, people in Ireland really arent encouraged or helped to reduce or come off methadone completely. However, in other countries, methadone maintenance is very effective, and many people on maintenance come off it and resume regular life including working and raising their children in a healthy and responsible manner.

Just because you hear people at work talking about stuff, does not mean that they are the final word on the subject. People generalise, and people who have been in addiction in a lot of cases go on to be productive members of society,

As for sterilisng people in addiction, I really don't agree with that! What happens to the people who come through their addiction and stay clean?? Are they supposed to be denied the right to have a child, even if they have productive jobs and make good money?

Eric Cartman

I dont think you should be allowed have more children while on social welfare, If your in a job and lose it and have kids , the social should support them, but if there was some way of stopping people having kids easily id say do that to everyone on social welfare so they cant have any more till they get a job.

also pretty much anyone under 25 in my eyes is not ready to become a parent. im 21 and know 3 people younger than me and 2 people older (but under 25) who have kids and all ill say is if i didnt know them and was just a stranger id probably call a social worker to go out and check on them

Johro

There are some kids around I definitely wouldn't like to see reproductions of.:p
Crap thread title by the way.
'Is it our right to reproduce a child'- Emm...Yes. -'and can/should it be taken from you?' Emm... No.
Unless I was a sh!t parent. Done.

Johro

strobe wrote: »

Can we start with the idiots that believe everyone in a certain group are the same as each other? I think it could be quite beneficial to prevent these retarded sh1tebags from being allowed procreate as well.

They're breeding like freakin rabbits on AH...

stovelid

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

Some of the threads on this board seriously make me wonder

Just wait until you're around a bit longer.

iPlop