Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Should prospective parents have to pass an examination before giving birth?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#26 phalkon

phalkon
  • 2399 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 07:23 AM

it's all the government systems, it's not fully the people. but then there's no way to put a halt on the guerrilla warfare going on in these countries.

it's all just a barked up ball of CRANBERRIES

#27 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 June 2007 - 06:53 PM

QUOTE(murderkill @ Jun 9 2007, 09:25 PM) View Post
ugh... there's too many barking retards on earth. some of them just *shouldn't* reproduce.


All the barkin retards on earth could fit in the state of texas several times over accomodating a large amount of square feet for each person to live in.

#28 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 June 2007 - 07:36 PM

QUOTE(Athean @ Jun 14 2007, 09:53 PM) View Post
All the barkin retards on earth could fit in the state of texas several times over accomodating a large amount of square feet for each person to live in.

Sure, the ones that are diagnosed. Hell, most of them already live here. But the undiagnosed ones, well... I expect as soon as China has a healthcare revolution, we'll see a few million pop up without a problem.

#29 Christopher Robin

Christopher Robin
  • 5302 posts


Users Awards

Posted 19 June 2007 - 12:35 PM

I think you should at least have the necessities to BE a parent... like... to give the child a decent life, instead of being it's crackhead mother, and not caring for it...

#30 sockopen

sockopen
  • 1481 posts

Posted 19 June 2007 - 12:50 PM

QUOTE(pink ladylion @ Apr 24 2007, 03:41 PM) View Post
Due to the fact that IQs had been gaining steadily over the past three decades, but are now at a standstill (Rodgers' addition to the Flynn Effect) should prospective parents have to meet a certain standard before having children? And if so, what sort of standard would we hold them to?


Yes because we all know that people aren't going to have sex until they pass this test.

#31 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 June 2007 - 09:40 PM

QUOTE(redlion @ Jun 14 2007, 08:36 PM) View Post
Sure, the ones that are diagnosed. Hell, most of them already live here. But the undiagnosed ones, well... I expect as soon as China has a healthcare revolution, we'll see a few million pop up without a problem.


All 6 and a half billion people can fit in Texas. It'd be crowded and shitty like New York City, but its possible.

#32 Bryn AKA Interhacker

Bryn AKA Interhacker
  • 1885 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 02:52 PM

what about handicaped people? they aint gonna be able to pass an exam, does that mena they cant have kids?

what about blind people?
what about dixlexic people?



#33 wikkles

wikkles
  • 556 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 July 2012 - 12:52 AM

Criminals. The mentally retarded or unstable. Potential parents deemed 'unfit'.


Is it morally justified to take away their right to reproduce? If so, at what point is it justified. Who would decide whether or not they have the basic right of child-rearing taken away? Consequences?

#34 luvsmyncis

luvsmyncis
  • I have no friends.

  • 6724 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 July 2012 - 06:01 AM

It's immoral. A part of me I wishes there were some way to justify such a thing. People everyday already elect to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation, and everyone would be better off if unsuitable people were unable to bring an even more unsuitable child into this world. But forcing retards or rapists to undergo such a procedure would be just as bad as telling women they shouldn't be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The only person who should have control over our your own body is yourself.

#35 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 July 2012 - 11:27 PM

It is immoral. Though, I do sort of wish there was a test people had to take to prove they were ready to procreate. Or something. You shouldnt be having 7 abortions. You shouldnt keep producing kids if you cant provide for them. If you are a crappy parent, or just overall genetically crappy, you shouldnt reproduce. But it is still immoral, imo

#36 idontknow951

idontknow951
  • 490 posts

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:54 AM

That depends completely on how you define morality and who is allowed to decide what is moral and what isn't. Back in the 20s when the eugenics movement was at its peak, nobody was really against it. It wasn't until the aftermath of WWII did people realize what it really meant when Hitler took it to an extreme.

I don't care if it's moral or not, I support it either way.

#37 luvsmyncis

luvsmyncis
  • I have no friends.

  • 6724 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:07 AM

You shouldnt be having 7 abortions.


Why not?

#38 HannahElizabeth

HannahElizabeth
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:09 AM

Absolutely immoral. Also, open to abuse. The State should never sanction this sort thing, ever.

#39 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 July 2012 - 08:55 PM

Forced? No. Free? Yes.

Vasectomies and tube tying are perfectly standardized outpatient procedures. I see no reason why the state shouldn't offer them free of charge to anyone that wants one. Put some sperm in a sperm bank and fucking snip that shit.

It would even keep the religious nuts happy - it would cut down on abortions ;)

#40 Guest_coltom_*

Guest_coltom_*

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:05 PM

You have any idea how many NDN were sterilized after being arrest on minor charges during the 30-80's. Dang, I've seen this gig in practice and it didn't work very well the last time.

Why not?

Seven is a lucky number?

#41 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:06 PM

Criminals. The mentally retarded or unstable. Potential parents deemed 'unfit'.


Is it morally justified to take away their right to reproduce? If so, at what point is it justified. Who would decide whether or not they have the basic right of child-rearing taken away? Consequences?


Just a little nitpicky thing BUT

You are not taking away someone's RIGHT to reproduce, you are taking away their ABILITY to reproduce. Forcibly removing the ability for someone to fulfill their basic human rights (which are relative, I know, but still) is immoral regardless of the reason.

On the flip side, if you actually did take away the right to reproduce, that wouldn't stop it from happening.

#42 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:09 PM

On the flip side, if you actually did take away the right to reproduce, that wouldn't stop it from happening.

Hence China.

#43 kidbit

kidbit
  • 159 posts

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:14 PM

But forcing retards or rapists to undergo such a procedure would be just as bad as telling women they shouldn't be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The only person who should have control over our your own body is yourself.


this, perfectly said.

also, mentally disabled people can generate completely normal children, as well as rapists or murderers. the question is if they can raise them or not, and that's a whole different matter.

Edited by rachelsaurus, 23 July 2012 - 09:15 PM.


#44 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:30 PM

Bump. Merge with other topic in debate chat please.

#45 Strategist

Strategist
  • Sadmin

  • 10012 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 July 2012 - 11:00 PM

done

#46 idontknow951

idontknow951
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:30 AM

Hence China.


Fun fact: If China didn't enforce the one child policy, world population would have hit 9 billion by now. People breed like rodents. There has to be a limit somewhere.

#47 Ladida

Ladida
  • Night Owl 🌛

  • 2152 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:57 AM

Fun fact: If China didn't enforce the one child policy, world population would have hit 9 billion by now. People breed like rodents. There has to be a limit somewhere.

.
I could understand why they had to before when they didn't have modern medicine and most of their kids died before adulthood. Nowadays, people just want kids. I disagree with allowing anyone other than yourself to make decisions about your body, because only you should have that power. That power can be very easily misused and abused if placed in anyone else's hands.

On another note, it's also unfair that humans are urged to spay and neuter their pets, especially if it's immoral to force humans to lose the ability to procreate. Humans also kill unwanted animals with no consequences unless they horrendously physically abuse the poor creatures (my neighbour got a vet to euthanize all his puppies, a girl I knew drowned her newborn kittens), or they kill animals that are overpopulating an area like rabbits or hares (or just kill them for sport!), but humans have the right to not be treated the way they treat other living creatures. I saw that Family Guy episode today, where Brian ran over someone's pet, and everyone laughed and told him that life was worth nothing. Humans are allowed to choose to keep their reproductive organs intact. Humans are overpopulating the earth but you can bet there won't be anyone killing people to reduce that. Only humans have rights apparently. Utter hypocrisy.

Do the pets tell you that they want to be spayed or neutered? Of course not, you're doing it without their consent, and without their knowledge until it happens. Is it immoral to take away your dog's or your cat's ability to reproduce? Are you violating his/her rights to reproduce? Are humans more entitled to rights than any other living beings? I remember Bob Barker always reminding us to get our pets spayed and neutered after each episode of The Price is Right. This entire thing brings to mind this quote: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

#48 idontknow951

idontknow951
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:11 AM

You're picking two sides that are mutually exclusive. You can't allow people to have the power to reproduce AND attempt to stop overpopulation.

#49 Ladida

Ladida
  • Night Owl 🌛

  • 2152 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:33 AM

Overpopulation could be curbed by people reproducing responsibly. One child per family isn't bad, neither is two. But people are going nuts over that restriction, and not registering their kids, or they're waiting for another one to come along and then registering them as twins (found that gem on CNN the other day with respect to China). People want more and more kids, or they inevitably get more and more if they don't have access to proper birth control. Their breeding doesn't have go out of control as long as they use common sense and birth control. The common sense is what's sorely lacking, along with access to birth control in some areas, but when you start allowing other people to make decisions about your body, you're going to find that a lot of freedoms you take for granted may just start disappearing. Rather than sterilizing people, the one child per family is a great place to start, with fines/jail time if you decide to go over the limit. That will probably get more people to be more responsible about their methods of birth control as well.

#50 idontknow951

idontknow951
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:13 AM

Overpopulation could be curbed by people reproducing responsibly. One child per family isn't bad, neither is two. But people are going nuts over that restriction, and not registering their kids, or they're waiting for another one to come along and then registering them as twins (found that gem on CNN the other day with respect to China). People want more and more kids, or they inevitably get more and more if they don't have access to proper birth control. Their breeding doesn't have go out of control as long as they use common sense and birth control. The common sense is what's sorely lacking, along with access to birth control in some areas, but when you start allowing other people to make decisions about your body, you're going to find that a lot of freedoms you take for granted may just start disappearing. Rather than sterilizing people, the one child per family is a great place to start, with fines/jail time if you decide to go over the limit. That will probably get more people to be more responsible about their methods of birth control as well.


That isn't good either. One child per family means an overall shrinking population. You also have to realize this is also a problem due to stage 2+3 countries with a ridiculously high birth rate and a declining death rate. There are a multitude of factors in overpopulation and it isn't a band-aid fix.

I still do think a better solution would be to only let adults who are capable parents reproduce and not just anyone.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users