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%

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Memetics)
    I did just read that around 2 weeks ago, so maybe it stems from that haha
    Great book. Have you read Brave New World? Natural conception is totally disgusting by their social standards and monogamy is seen as bizarre, everyone is born in test tubes and conditioned into certain social classes, it's a fantastic book, one of my favourites
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aspirinpharmacist)
    Great book. Have you read Brave New World? Natural conception is totally disgusting by their social standards and monogamy is seen as bizarre, everyone is born in test tubes and conditioned into certain social classes, it's a fantastic book, one of my favourites
    That book was wonderful, and I just saw it in a different way to everyone else. While most readers are disgusted at the lack of freedom, I see that it is truly "freedom" to them. A world where everyone is happy is useless because after the ending, you truly realise that only with misery can happiness be truly appreciated.
    Great book, sorry, it's slightly off topic!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHistoryStudent)
    .
    I agree with the circumstantial part. It is the downfall of a test like this as it would only be possible to measure the present and not the future.
    I do however think that something should be done about the problem and would ask if any greater suggestions for something to counter the problems that this relatively simplistic test would in theory do.

    (Original post by aspirinpharmacist)
    Great book. Have you read Brave New World? Natural conception is totally disgusting by their social standards and monogamy is seen as bizarre, everyone is born in test tubes and conditioned into certain social classes, it's a fantastic book, one of my favourites
    No I haven't actually. I'll look into it thanks
    Sounds a lot like the movie Gattaca, which was quite interesting
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, that's incredibly unethical. And if someone fails, how would you enforce them not to have kids?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    No, that's incredibly unethical. And if someone fails, how would you enforce them not to have kids?
    I made a suggestion in further posts in this thread, If you would be interested.

    And I have now edited the OP

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A test would be a good thing in terms of financial reasons. However would a test prove someone's willingness to put a child's need and care before anything else? (that doesn't mean spoiling the child) I think through experience alone, someone can fully understand the hard work to be a parent and whether it's suited for them.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    How about the only negative repercussion of this test is that they have to take the test again, lets say the next day. So they just keep having a go at this test daily until they pass it. Then there becomes an incentive to pass beyond that of caring of your child(we need this as otherwise we aren't improving anyone's ability to care for a child as the ones who already care are the ones we need not worry about), the incentive of having to go to a test centre daily. Fines if you don't turn up. (As if anyone would get to that stage, if this was implemented)

    We can make everyone take test at school perhaps?

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RVNmax)
    How about the only negative repercussion of this test is that they have to take the test again, lets say the next day. So they just keep having a go at this test daily until they pass it. Then there becomes an incentive to pass beyond that of caring of your child(we need this as otherwise we aren't improving anyone's ability to care for a child as the ones who already care are the ones we need not worry about), the incentive of having to go to a test centre daily. Fines if you don't turn up. (As if anyone would get to that stage, if this was implemented)

    We can make everyone take test at school perhaps?
    That's an interesting idea, but to me it would be unnecessary. The problem would arise that if someone does not ant children, they would still have to take the test anyway everyday. It should be given to everyone at the age of say 20. And repeated voluntarily after that. Those that pass should have to retake it every few years or so.

    They would be too young at school, but maybe around 20, which gives an accurate representation of themselves without parental support.

    And it may not only be a paper test. Other assessments would be necessary to conduct an unalterable/cheatable test
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Memetics)
    Edit: The Question of what would happen if you failed this test has come up frequently, as I have explained, A sort of involuntary contraception( the pill most likely) would probably have to be introduced. There would be frequent check ups to make sure you comply, and negative repercussions if you do not. (impact of job/ uni prospects, withdrawal of a cash bonus that is given to those that stick to it. If you pass the test, you can come off it.
    That is incredibly totalitarian. You're forcing people to be sterile because of your own conceptions about what fits a good parent based on a test - any implication of such a thing would either

    1.) Never happen because it would be so hard fought against
    2.) Fail because people would cheat on the test
    3.) Fail because decent people would misunderstand the test and fail
    4.) Fail because people would still have children anyway
    5.) Fail because it infringes upon human rights.

    In any case, it is an unrealistic, unethical notion which promotes state control on someone's body. If you think that's a good idea I suggest you take a look at country's like China, or read Brave New World.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No people would get pregnant anyway, what would you do then? Force sterilization?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I voted yes.
    There should be a so-called 'test' to ask them how they would look after their kids.
    It obviously seems that some parents believe it is ok abuse their kids - in some cases, child abuse.
    There have many been parents on the news who abused their babies.
    One of most the disturbing case is "baby p" who died a year old I think after his dad broke his rib cage (while videoing it and his mum was on the laptop in some other room playing cards!!!!!).
    This happened in a council home (I think) in tottenham, north london.

    Anyways, this test will obviously cause some ethical problems - parents will obviously be furious about not being allowed to have kids. Local authorities wont even know about babies who are home born - big problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infinity_4652)
    There should be a so-called 'test' to ask them how they would look after their kids.
    Some parents may manipulate their answers (read: lie).

    This is addressed to OP, what happens then:
    How do they get to this testing stage, do they go up to the local authority and request the test paper? You do realise 'mistakes' happen, it's how most people were conceived.
    Where do they sit this test?
    Who examines them, is there a mark scheme?

    Requiring tests or licenses to have a child sets a slippery slope for other things, like requiring a licence to have a relationship because a minority of people abuse their partners. Most people are acceptable parents, it's only a few who abuse their kids, and honestly a test would not deter them as they can manipulate their answers. Do you punish a whole class for the misbehaviour of a few students etc?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    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.
    Hmm, well I'm not saying that they are forever banned from having children, based on their background. Just that they need to be able to pass a test (be that a certain level of income, state of their criminal record, an actual test which checks to see if they're competent like a driving test, etc)
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I voted no. For one, enforced contraception is a frightening notion. Nobody should be forced to take anything - their body, their choice. Plus contraception in the form of pills, injections etc, are not suitable for everyone anyway - there are people who have bad physical reactions to them.

    I do think it might be a good idea to, at the age of say, 12, give kids a taste of what it's like to be a parent. I know there are dolls made for such a purpose - they cry, you have to "feed" them, change their nappies, and so on. Let the kids - both genders - look after them for a week, or at least a few days. That will teach them something about the responsibilities of being a parent, and that it's not simple and straightforward at all. It could prevent some unwanted pregnancies.

    As for another test, I think it would be pretty meaningless. People's circumstances change. They might pass the test because they're in a good relationship, in good jobs and what not, but relationships fail and people lose their jobs, especially in the current economic climate.

    To use an example - my sister had a baby in December. She was in a long-term relationship, living together with her partner. Both had good jobs. He'd been wanting to have a child more than a year before my sister fell pregnant. She'd been holding out, wanting to see how well they worked living together, so the child was wanted and they were being responsible. After the baby was born, he lost all interest. He resented the time my sister spent with the baby, and didn't want to do a thing, not change a single nappy. My sister is now a single mother. You can't predict things like that. For the record, my niece is well looked after, much loved, and developing really well, so less than ideal circumstances don't have to affect a child in a negative manner.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So what happened to the concept of freedom?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    That is incredibly totalitarian. You're forcing people to be sterile because of your own conceptions about what fits a good parent based on a test - any implication of such a thing would either

    1.) Never happen because it would be so hard fought against
    2.) Fail because people would cheat on the test
    3.) Fail because decent people would misunderstand the test and fail
    4.) Fail because people would still have children anyway
    5.) Fail because it infringes upon human rights.

    In any case, it is an unrealistic, unethical notion which promotes state control on someone's body. If you think that's a good idea I suggest you take a look at country's like China, or read Brave New World.
    First of all, it would only be the result of a democracy and a vote for or against it. It would indeed most likely not happen in today world, I don't disagree with this. The contents would not be me or any other singular person, it would fit the societies view of a good parent.
    Sterilization, in my understanding anyway, is permanent. This is not permanent, therefore it is not sterilization. You fail, fix it, there is obviously a problem, and the test can put you in the right direction. You can sit it again, providing you improve on your parent prospects.

    And from what I've seen, the poll suggests otherwise as a study.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Memetics)
    Edit: The Question of what would happen if you failed this test has come up frequently, as I have explained, A sort of involuntary contraception( the pill most likely) would probably have to be introduced. There would be frequent check ups to make sure you comply, and negative repercussions if you do not. (impact of job/ uni prospects, withdrawal of a cash bonus that is given to those that stick to it. If you pass the test, you can come off it.
    The pill is only for women at present, so what about men who fail the test? And if you're thinking in terms of couples, I did ask before about what would happen if the woman passed but the man failed - would she be expected to take the pill even though she passed?
    Also, pills are not 100% effective, even when used correctly. And people can forget, I forgot mine earlier this week.
    Also, if (I'll go first person because it's easier to say then) we roll out this test for say 21 year olds - which I am - and I fail the test, do I just automatically have to take the pill despite the fact I'm not sexually active? If there is no chance of me getting pregnant, would I be subject to involuntary contraception? Seems it would be pretty unfair on me.
    However, if not, what's to stop people lying and saying they're not sexually active and escaping the involuntary contraception and then if they do fall pregnant they say there were raped/assaulted to avoid the penalty?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    The pill is only for women at present, so what about men who fail the test? And if you're thinking in terms of couples, I did ask before about what would happen if the woman passed but the man failed - would she be expected to take the pill even though she passed?
    Also, pills are not 100% effective, even when used correctly. And people can forget, I forgot mine earlier this week.
    Also, if (I'll go first person because it's easier to say then) we roll out this test for say 21 year olds - which I am - and I fail the test, do I just automatically have to take the pill despite the fact I'm not sexually active? If there is no chance of me getting pregnant, would I be subject to involuntary contraception? Seems it would be pretty unfair on me.
    However, if not, what's to stop people lying and saying they're not sexually active and escaping the involuntary contraception and then if they do fall pregnant they say there were raped/assaulted to avoid the penalty?
    I did not notice that question, sorry.
    The repercussions to a man are something I have trouble with, and I would say that it is not viable now, but I am confident that it may happen in the future.The reason I state the pill is that it is a effective method of contraception that id=s unalterable one taken but is still temporary, unlike sterilization, which is ridiculous.
    And No, she is free to have a child if she wished. He would not be though. But this would be a rare situation, as if a couple were having a child they would most likely be living together, if not this would be a cause for some interest. This would suggest they were not fully committed to each other under normal circumstances, so should most likely not have a child.
    Would that not be a good thing. If ever anyone was to be subjected to the horrible situation of rape, do you really want a child to this person? and think of the child life, if it found this out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a qualified nursery nurse and former early years teacher. I am also a parent. I have a lot of knowledge and experience in my former field of work. I was at the top of my game and delivered training to others however, NOTHING and I mean nothing prepares you for the challenge that is parenting.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    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.
    Ah, apologies, I misread what you wrote

    (Original post by Memetics)
    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 )
    I'm happy that my mum is alive, I'm not happy that she was neglected or abused... I'm just saying that you can't always be sure. My mum's mum would have passed, because nobody had any evidence of the neglect till my mum and her sister were older, and my mum had already been born before they knew that her brother was going to be abusive. So your test would not have made a difference to my mum's childhood. I apologise for misreading the point about abuse, but some people think that victims of abuse shouldn't be able to have children because statistically they are more likely to abuse their own children - and I thought this might have come under your 'History of abuse' criterion.

    My main point is that you're not going to make that much of a difference, if at all, but in trying to do so you will be forcing people to put substances into their body which can interfere with their body chemistry, costing the NHS unnecessary money (if you have to force people who aren't even sexually active to take contraception because they failed the test), causing potentially horrible side effects because of some not very clear criteria that might impact the lives of maybe one or two children - when really you could just put this time, effort and money into improving the efficiency of social services to make sure those children are removed from their parents instead.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.