Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should there be a test to become a Parent? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should there be a test to become a Parent?
    Yes
    47.25%
    No
    52.75%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    Who's going to put these dreadful people onto the pill and make sure they do not, under any circumstances, conceive?
    They will. There may both be an incentive to do it, such as a cash bonus. Money that could stem from the absence of the social work industry for example. Or there could be a strike system, reminiscent of the driving licence system. A failure to abide by the system would result in dent to and university and employ-ability prospects. It would effectively go on your criminal record as you would be breaking the law.

    If you fail this test, which the vast majority would not, then you would deserve this added repercussions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    you people who voted yes make me sick
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No because as you have a child your maternal/paternal instinct and love grows. You may not be the best parent at first and manage to bring a gift of life to the world and learn with experience because there are many things that academia simply cannot teach someone. What a ridiculous question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    My mum was neglected by her mother and abused by her brother, and instead of being likely to do this herself, she went the other way and did her very best to make sure we were protected from this, she severed ties with her family when she got married despite them all hating her for it.
    I just graduated with a 2:1 from The University of Lancaster, my brother is about to start an engineering degree. We wouldn't have existed under this criterion.
    Oh, I didn't mean the victims of abuse, I don't believe that all victims of abuse will abuse their children or other loved ones.
    And exactly, I just said to someone that there shouldn't be someone saying certain children shouldn't exist, everyone has potential.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Memetics)
    They will. There may both be an incentive to do it, such as a cash bonus. Money that could stem from the absence of the social work industry for example. Or there could be a strike system, reminiscent of the driving licence system. A failure to abide by the system would result in dent to and university and employ-ability prospects. It would effectively go on your criminal record as you would be breaking the law.

    If you fail this test, which the vast majority would not, then you would deserve this added repercussions.
    I don't think you understand my point, I mean WHO is going to implement and measure this system? The government, social services, society? How can you know that your criteria is right and you're not just perceiving these to be problems? If someone is found out to be abusing or neglecting their child, they should obviously be punished, but would you like it if someone picked one of your negative characteristics (say you get really angry one day) and say for the rest of your life your right to children is denied? Everyone makes mistakes and they learn from it, having a child can actually make someone develop as a person and make them better for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    Drugs, alcohol - moderation

    Criminality - depending on the crime, if serious they should be in prison

    Young age - it depends on how young but age is arbitrary as some people are more mature than others. If a girl is pregnant at 15/16, has family to pay for the baby and understands, then it's not ideal nor would I recommend it, but what's done is done and she could turn out to be a good mother.

    Putting themselves first - how can you measure this? It doesn't mean they're incapable of loving, supporting or caring for their child. Some people are more inclined to care about themselves more. If you mean going out at night and leaving the child alone that is irresponsible.

    Impatient - you're telling me you've never been impatient before?

    Emotional instability - it depends how extreme/unstable and how they can control themselves, it doesn't mean they can't have children, as this stems from mental health issues, which should be treated and understood.

    History of abuse - only one I agree with that people who abuse and are likely to in the future shouldn't have children.
    I agree with you. It depends on the extremity of the characteristic. I'm not trying to convey that even a slight hint of instability results in an instant inability to have children. But for those that would have a negative effect on the child, they should not have children. Why should they, they would not deserve it and many of their traits could be passed down to their children, creating a domino effect.



    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    My mum was neglected by her mother and abused by her brother, and instead of being likely to do this herself, she went the other way and did her very best to make sure we were protected from this, she severed ties with her family when she got married despite them all hating her for it.
    I just graduated with a 2:1 from The University of Lancaster, my brother is about to start an engineering degree. We wouldn't have existed under this criterion.
    Shame. You also would not have been able to say that you would not have existed.
    Your mother did a good thing, but it's childhoods like your mothers that would have been stopped from happening. Are you honestly saying that you are happy that your mother suffered through her childhood so she could have you and your brother? Your mother would have passed, but her parents would most likely have not.

    ( Well done on your degree )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chef)
    you people who voted yes make me sick
    How do you feel about the prospect of a child being born into a family where he/she will be beaten/sexually abused for years when this could have been avoided using a simple test. This thought is equally sickening.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    Who are you to say that those children or puppies shouldn't exist?
    No-one's saying that I should have the power to decide who lives or dies, you can do better than that, surely :rolleyes:

    The puppies go on to populate an ever-growing number of over-subscribed rescue centres, to live a few more months in a cage before being killed.

    The kids have no job prospects, get involved in crime because they're surrounded by bored kids from broken families, and either perpetuate the problem by having children themselves whilst being unable to care for them, or live miserable lives at the expense of the state.

    It's not rocket science to see that neither live lives that a rational person would deem acceptable - and whilst we're not taking away the children's lives once they've been born, they're born into a world where they can't enjoy a particularly fulfilling or happy life.

    And you'll probably try and retaliate with "you don't know what they'll do with their lives, one might go on to cure cancerrr" - but that's not the point and you (should) know it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Having said that, I disagree with OP. All humans have vast potential, regardless of what their parents are like. Think about how slowly our world would progress if this test where to be implemented - resulting in the potential elimination of fantastic minds/hard workers/visionaries to come.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    If there would be any test, it would seem to me that an IQ test would be the way to go - not sure how you figure that would be ethically wrong.
    IQ tests are stupid. This sounds good in theory, I think there should be a test but one not enforced by the law, so say parents can take an optional test by the state to see how fit they would be with finances etc, and what their options are; I just think there are to many variables, a good parent isn't fixed, and a good parent can become a bad one and a good parent depending on circumstances.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I reckon all parents should attend parent training, changing nappies, bf support what benefits the child etc etc, just basic play techniques too! You'd be surprised hoe many parents can't play with their own children!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Memetics)
    I agree with you. It depends on the extremity of the characteristic. I'm not trying to convey that even a slight hint of instability results in an instant inability to have children. But for those that would have a negative effect on the child, they should not have children. Why should they, they would not deserve it and many of their traits could be passed down to their children, creating a domino effect.
    It depends on whether their emotional instability exists in a mental illness, or they use it against their child. Parents can't be perfect but they should try their best for their children. What about denying people the right to children just in case they lose their job, you can't live life by 'what ifs', sometimes it's better to not have a manual and instructions for everything, but just deal with situations as they occur.

    Shame. You also would not have been able to say that you would not have existed.
    Your mother did a good thing, but it's childhoods like your mothers that would have been stopped from happening. Are you honestly saying that you are happy that your mother suffered through her childhood so she could have you and your brother? Your mother would have passed, but her parents would most likely have not.

    ( Well done on your degree )
    That's not minimarshmallow's fault or her mother's. Unfortunately some people are going to have unhappy childhoods but that doesn't mean they're doomed for the rest of their lives, they can overcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Stuart Mill)
    IQ tests are stupid. This sounds good in theory, I think there should be a test but one not enforced by the law, so say parents can take an optional test by the state to see how fit they would be with finances etc, and what their options are; I just think there are to many variables, a good parent isn't fixed, and a good parent can become a bad one and a good parent depending on circumstances.
    What do you mean by 'IQ tests are stupid'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    What do you mean by 'IQ tests are stupid'?
    Even most psychologists now agree that it is an inefficient method, and quantifying intelligence is way to simple given that everyone has a relative definition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kmcgowan13)
    I reckon all parents should attend parent training, changing nappies, bf support what benefits the child etc etc, just basic play techniques too! You'd be surprised hoe many parents can't play with their own children!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Can you not see how patronising it would be for a pregnant mother to be told she needs to attend 'parent training' or play techniques and be told how she raises her own child? There isn't a set way for parents to play with children. I think when the child is born, as long as you have basic skills like feeding it, changing it, you go along with it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People should have a right to their own bodies and lives, and it's simply against human rights to force anything to stop people having children. It would cost a fortune to create these 'generalised-in-the-box' tests, and even more to enforce it. Imagine the NHS costs of people refusing to turn up for sterilisation operations?

    However, introducing a free, voluntary test to people who are considering parenting could have its uses. Potential parents could be reminded the difficulty in raising children and will make them more aware of what they might face, making them more 'prepared' for parenting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Looney Tunes)
    Having said that, I disagree with OP. All humans have vast potential, regardless of what their parents are like. Think about how slowly our world would progress if this test where to be implemented - resulting in the potential elimination of fantastic minds/hard workers/visionaries to come.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, I understand that. Would that put you against abortion? (I really, REALLY do not want this thread to turn to that, but your opinion sparked my interest.)
    But it would be selfish of me to make these "fantastic" minds go through a terrible childhood and suffer life long emotional scarring so that humanity can reap the benefits of their ideas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Stuart Mill)
    Even most psychologists now agree that it is an inefficient method, and quantifying intelligence is way to simple given that everyone has a relative definition.
    Since when do most psychologists think that? Has there been some sort of resolution?

    IQ seems to correlate significantly with important life outcomes - I don't know why you'd dismiss that so readily.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's too impractical. Also who decides who can be a parent? It's all to risky.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    No-one's saying that I should have the power to decide who lives or dies, you can do better than that, surely :rolleyes:

    The puppies go on to populate an ever-growing number of over-subscribed rescue centres, to live a few more months in a cage before being killed.

    The kids have no job prospects, get involved in crime because they're surrounded by bored kids from broken families, and either perpetuate the problem by having children themselves whilst being unable to care for them, or live miserable lives at the expense of the state.

    It's not rocket science to see that neither live lives that a rational person would deem acceptable - and whilst we're not taking away the children's lives once they've been born, they're born into a world where they can't enjoy a particularly fulfilling or happy life.

    And you'll probably try and retaliate with "you don't know what they'll do with their lives, one might go on to cure cancerrr" - but that's not the point and you (should) know it
    In terms of principle we are probably on the same wavelength that parents have a responsibility to their children, to raise it in a safe environment (free from abuse), as they created that life and brought it into the world. However, a life is life, and once it is born that individual isn't less deserving of it than a child from a 'better' environment with higher prospects.

    Most parents are not bad people, they will love the child unconditionally once it's born. Some may be slightly clueless or give it unfavourable circumstances. The bad ones should be punished, but it's wrong to say some people can't have children, in just in case terms.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.