Parents should have to have training before they are ALLOWED to have children.

[yantorsen]

Essentially the alternative is that you have state-sanctioned sterilisation/abortion/infanticide to enforce the law - which is the extreme end of the spectrum, the arguments against this shouldn't be too hard..!

The more moderate view would be that state support for children is only given when the state consents to a child being born - however the counter-argument would be what would you do with the child once it is born if the parent cannot support it? If people do not have enough money to survive by legal means then they will inevitably turn to criminal means by sheer necessity - raising the argument that is the dole simply a bribe for the poor to stop them engaging in criminal activity....!

You could use the argument that unless parents are 'qualified', the state will take away the children and raise the children under the care of the state - however historically the state has never been the best at raising children..

Not gonna say any more, but think about some of that

yes I had thought of the practicalities of it, and how it would be hard to enforce, that has givin me some more food for thought though, thank you.

 

[nichorob]

If I was in charge id have everyone muted at birth and then make people who want kids pass a set of requirements needed to have them and have a reversal. Obviously completely immoral and probably medically impossible but it would sure as hell improve the standard of this country in 20 years time.

 

[yantorsen]

Couples have to jump through hoops when they want to adopt or foster, and have to prove to the authorities that they are "suitable" to look after the children.

However any fertile pair of people can just pop out offspring after offspring without any justification, tests, paperwork etc.


Fair? I think not.

(Oh yeah, I'm a 23yr old male, who has no intention of having kids yet, be it natural or adopt/foster - so this is just my observations, not a low-blow because I've been declined for adopting/fostering etc )

certainly and intresting counter argument that.

 

[yantorsen]

If I was in charge id have everyone muted at birth and then make people who want kids pass a set of requirements needed to have them and have a reversal. Obviously completely immoral and probably medically impossible but it would sure as hell improve the standard of this country in 20 years time.

no it would not, we'd all be zombie's in an authoritarian state.

 

[Van Hellseek]

thank you, I did not know this, I will read into it.

It's a little different to your question though, as it's not designed to prevent bad parents from having children, it's to limit couples from having more than one child, because of the countries population growth problem.

But many of the problems associated with the system would be the same though.

 

[BobMonkhouse]

It would never work. Can you imagine being made to pass an interview/test in order to be allowed to have children. What about the people that have children regardless? Forced abortions???

If it's for the purpose of reducing the population increase then they should make more financial incentives for having fewer children/you don't get thousands in benefits for having lots of children. People would soon get the message and stop having so many.

What there should be more of is more relevant life lessons in schools, i.e.training on how to budget/run a household/how much it costs to raise a child etc etc. Yes these are all things that should be taught by parents/obvious but it seems this is becoming less and less the norm.

 

[nichorob]

no it would not, we'd all be zombie's in an authoritarian state.

Well its only really a harsher version of what your saying. Who will make this training mandatory and whats to stop two people from jumping into bed together and making a sprog without this so called training?

 

[Van Hellseek]

What about the people that have children regardless? Forced abortions???.

In China the penalty for unlicensed babies is a fine. Which many people, particularly in rural China, cannot afford. Thus many parents reluctantly (and sometimes not-so-reluctantly) sell their illegal babies on the black market, before they are found out to have given birth by authorities. This means they not only avoid paying the fine, but they also get a lot of money in return. Hence a booming black-market baby trade.

 

[yantorsen]

Well its only really a harsher version of what your saying. Who will make this training mandatory and whats to stop two people from jumping into bed together and making a sprog without this so called training?

I wasn'st saying it, read the OP, it's just a debate topic.

 

[Jon Frost]

Im not ******* paying for the training, and then paying for them to have kids as well. NO.

 

[nichorob]

I wasn'st saying it, read the OP, it's just a debate topic.

I didnt mean you individually, I meant the debate topic, but dont worry yourself, I think ive had enough of this one already.

 

[Van Hellseek]

whats to stop two people from jumping into bed together and making a sprog without this so called training?

Nothing would stop people having babies, but if they are caught to have had one without a licence then there would be a penalty. Thats how the current system works in China as I mentioned.

 

[yantorsen]

one of my oponents arguments that I know of is that it would reduce youth crime, I cannot think of any counter arguments to this, can anyone else?

 

[Vixen]

I think with the fast growing population in the UK some form of limit on the amount of children you are allowed to have is not too far away. Only allowing parents that have had training might be a way to do this.

As long as the training is free I wouldn't mind. It might cause a drop in chav population.

IQ and means testing would be a much better way.

 

[yantorsen]

IQ and means testing would be a much better way.

so you only think intelligent people deserve children?

 

[Aod]

so you only think intelligent people deserve children?

yep.

 

[yantorsen]

yep.

just because someone is unintelligent doesn't make them a bad parent, or uncaring.

do you not think that your view is somewhat snobby?

 

[Aod]

just because someone is unintelligent doesn't make them a bad parent, or uncaring.

do you not think that your view is somewhat snobby?

we're talking on a relative scale here. people with very low intelligence should neither be allowed to proceate or have children.

people who are of a moderately low intelligence should be allowed (with suitability tests) to care for (like adoption) children.

snobby? probably. but i'm thinking on a species-centric basis here. the only way that humanity will progress if we weed out the unfit, seeing as society has progressed to a level where evolution (survival of the fittest) not longer works effectively.

 

[Minstadave]

The human gene pool is stagnated by lack of any selection pressure. A good eugenic program might help the change the state of the UKs youth population.

 

[yantorsen]

we're talking on a relative scale here. people with very low intelligence should neither be allowed to proceate or have children.

people who are of a moderately low intelligence should be allowed (with suitability tests) to care for (like adoption) children.

snobby? probably. but i'm thinking on a species-centric basis here. the only way that humanity will progress if we weed out the unfit, seeing as society has progressed to a level where evolution (survival of the fittest) not longer works effectively.

don't you think that's a bit authoritarian for it to be enforced though?