All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child ?
So.
I have a cousin is in a civil partnership, they obviously cannot have children the convential way (it's 2 men
). They have recently adopted a little boy.
The whole process took almost 3 years. 3 years of scrutiny to ensure they are 'fit' to be parents.
In this time scale, I could have found a man and had 3 babies (with one on the way), with not so much of a test to see how if I can be a good parent.
I don't know whether it would even be logistically possible to do what the title suggests, but (broad statement!!) should everyone be allowed to have kids?
I have a cousin is in a civil partnership, they obviously cannot have children the convential way (it's 2 men
). They have recently adopted a little boy.The whole process took almost 3 years. 3 years of scrutiny to ensure they are 'fit' to be parents.
In this time scale, I could have found a man and had 3 babies (with one on the way), with not so much of a test to see how if I can be a good parent.
I don't know whether it would even be logistically possible to do what the title suggests, but (broad statement!!) should everyone be allowed to have kids?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Supernova91
So.
I have a cousin is in a civil partnership, they obviously cannot have children the convential way (it's 2 men). They have recently adopted a little boy.
The whole process took almost 3 years. 3 years of scrutiny to ensure they are 'fit' to be parents.
In this time scale, I could have found a man and had 3 babies (with one on the way), with not so much of a test to see how if I can be a good parent.
I don't know whether it would even be logistically possible to do what the title suggests, but (broad statement!!) should everyone be allowed to have kids?
I have a cousin is in a civil partnership, they obviously cannot have children the convential way (it's 2 men
). They have recently adopted a little boy. The whole process took almost 3 years. 3 years of scrutiny to ensure they are 'fit' to be parents.
In this time scale, I could have found a man and had 3 babies (with one on the way), with not so much of a test to see how if I can be a good parent.
I don't know whether it would even be logistically possible to do what the title suggests, but (broad statement!!) should everyone be allowed to have kids?
I think everyone should have a chance to have children. I think although classes could be beneficial,like any skill theoretical situations only get you so far, it's only when you re in that situation that you ll know how you d react.
How would it work? You can't stop people having sex. It would be impossible to enforce.
If the state is giving a child to someone, they owe it to the child to check the people out but the state isn't involved in a child being born. Realistically, they can't be involved and nor should they.
If the state is giving a child to someone, they owe it to the child to check the people out but the state isn't involved in a child being born. Realistically, they can't be involved and nor should they.
Original post by Sternumator
How would it work? You can't stop people having sex. It would be impossible to enforce.
If the state is giving a child to someone, they owe it to the child to check the people out but the state isn't involved in a child being born. Realistically, they can't be involved and nor should they.
If the state is giving a child to someone, they owe it to the child to check the people out but the state isn't involved in a child being born. Realistically, they can't be involved and nor should they.
Sterilize everyone first.
Original post by Yaboi
Sterilize everyone first.
How are you going to do that? What procedure would you use? How would you make people turn up for the procedure? Who would carry out the procedure?
Original post by Sternumator
How are you going to do that? What procedure would you use? How would you make people turn up for the procedure? Who would carry out the procedure?
Vasalgel when its available.
For women I don't know.
Original post by Sternumator
How would it work? You can't stop people having sex. It would be impossible to enforce.
If the state is giving a child to someone, they owe it to the child to check the people out but the state isn't involved in a child being born. Realistically, they can't be involved and nor should they.
If the state is giving a child to someone, they owe it to the child to check the people out but the state isn't involved in a child being born. Realistically, they can't be involved and nor should they.
True.
But EG. A mother who has had children taken away in the past, and keeps having more?
Never mind
(edited 7 years ago)
I don't think it's really ethical to stop people from having kids (e.g. by sterilising/ forced abortions etc. - there isn't really an ethical way of doing it...) however it would perhaps be good to have free classes/ workshops on good parenting or something, perhaps with the incentive of free stuff for the new baby to encourage mothers to go along. Also, encouraging teenagers and young adults to use contraception (give out free condoms at sixth form?) or take the pill (currently tends to require visiting a family doctor to get a prescription and having regular check ups, which some teenagers may be concerned their parents knowing about, for example) would go a long way in reducing underage pregnancies.
Regarding the comment about those who repeatedly have kids but then get them taken away by the state - this is definitely a different situation, and one in which perhaps more measures could be taken. Those kids are then destined to be brought up in children's homes or adopted, which can be quite a challenging upbringing in many cases. Such mothers should perhaps be encouraged to attend counselling sessions or family planning workshops, and maybe recommended to take contraception such as the implant (i.e. something reliable that doesn't require having to remember to take every day) if they aren't always planning to have the children. Obviously that would depend on the situation though and whether it is down to a lack of contraception or perhaps more serious issues such as abusive relationships or rape where they need to be supported and protected.
Regarding the comment about those who repeatedly have kids but then get them taken away by the state - this is definitely a different situation, and one in which perhaps more measures could be taken. Those kids are then destined to be brought up in children's homes or adopted, which can be quite a challenging upbringing in many cases. Such mothers should perhaps be encouraged to attend counselling sessions or family planning workshops, and maybe recommended to take contraception such as the implant (i.e. something reliable that doesn't require having to remember to take every day) if they aren't always planning to have the children. Obviously that would depend on the situation though and whether it is down to a lack of contraception or perhaps more serious issues such as abusive relationships or rape where they need to be supported and protected.
Original post by RossB1702
Never mind
I thought you made a good point !
Original post by Supernova91
I thought you made a good point !
Yeah I deleted my original statement because I thought it would come off as offensive.
Original post by RossB1702
Yeah I deleted my original statement because I thought it would come off as offensive.
That is what I was referring to, it changed when I went to quote you !
Original post by Supernova91
True.
But EG. A mother who has had children taken away in the past, and keeps having more?
But EG. A mother who has had children taken away in the past, and keeps having more?
It is still not right for the state to enforce procedures on people. It is a total violation of bodily integrity.
Practically, who would carry out the procedure? Medical professionals wouldn't do it because it is unethical.
I also don't think the state has the right to decide who does and does not have children. They may step in to protect children once they are alive but that is very different from preventing them existing in the first place.
In your cousin's case the state is trying to protect a child that exists as they do when they take children off parents.
Not just classes but a test to qualify too! (I know, totally unrealistic but go with it for now)
If you want to drive a car, you have to take lessons and tests in order to minimize the harm you could do to others and to yourself and to learn how to operate a vehicle safely and correctly...
But when getting children, a child whose life and psyche you could destroy for life by being a stupid and horrible parent, no qualification is needed?!
The same goes imo for voting, why let people vote, if they'll just cross the name they heard once on tv? Voting can decide and has such a great sway on the economy and the whole future of a country!
In both cases we need a better education system, starting sooner and more intensive, with more money and time being invested for such crucial matters...
If you want to drive a car, you have to take lessons and tests in order to minimize the harm you could do to others and to yourself and to learn how to operate a vehicle safely and correctly...
But when getting children, a child whose life and psyche you could destroy for life by being a stupid and horrible parent, no qualification is needed?!
The same goes imo for voting, why let people vote, if they'll just cross the name they heard once on tv? Voting can decide and has such a great sway on the economy and the whole future of a country!
In both cases we need a better education system, starting sooner and more intensive, with more money and time being invested for such crucial matters...
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Sternumator
It is still not right for the state to enforce procedures on people. It is a total violation of bodily integrity.
Practically, who would carry out the procedure? Medical professionals wouldn't do it because it is unethical.
I also don't think the state has the right to decide who does and does not have children. They may step in to protect children once they are alive but that is very different from preventing them existing in the first place.
In your cousin's case the state is trying to protect a child that exists as they do when they take children off parents.
Practically, who would carry out the procedure? Medical professionals wouldn't do it because it is unethical.
I also don't think the state has the right to decide who does and does not have children. They may step in to protect children once they are alive but that is very different from preventing them existing in the first place.
In your cousin's case the state is trying to protect a child that exists as they do when they take children off parents.
We're on the same page! Just does not seem fair, especially for people who cannot conceive!
Original post by Supernova91
We're on the same page! Just does not seem fair, especially for people who cannot conceive!
It doesn't seem fair but I think biology is to blame here rather than the system.
I would be interested to know if there is any kind of vetting process in place for surrogate arrangements because I don't think it is fair for the state to intervene in that.
Original post by Sternumator
It doesn't seem fair but I think biology is to blame here rather than the system.
I would be interested to know if there is any kind of vetting process in place for surrogate arrangements because I don't think it is fair for the state to intervene in that.
I would be interested to know if there is any kind of vetting process in place for surrogate arrangements because I don't think it is fair for the state to intervene in that.
There must be? How long into the pregnancy does the state say 'this person is unfit '? (As with what we've previously discussed). I'm sure you can't just hand a baby over there must be rules somewhere
absurd suggestion.
Original post by l'etranger
absurd suggestion.
Of course it's absurd.. And who gets to decide how parents should parent their children? Everyone has different views on the parenting styles they adopt. Parenting classes are an option at the moment and are only used on a compulsory basis by Social Services when children are at risk.
I've never heard anything so ridiculous.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
