Partly facist...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2011, 04:31 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2011 07:54 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
Partly facist...
In our society you are denied things such as a house, a car, boat, and loans, etc... Multiple reasons come into play, but it boils down to they figure you aren't financially suitable based on your credit/income to be able to pay for such a thing.

I am just curious as to why no one entertains the idea of preventing people from having a child based on income or education. No, really, it kills me to know some children are born into poverty by stupid people ( I refuse to call them parents here, they are far from it, parents provide to a child and shelter them from harm.) that do not take conceiving a child into a financial decision.

Is it not just as much as the child's right to have parents capable of supporting a child? To have financial support when needed: Car? Clothes? Education?

Now I know there are a lot of odds and ends that would have to be addressed for this to go through, and I am not saying this is the absolute way of doing things. This is just a round about way of how I feel. Just because two people have the ability to create life does not mean they should be allowed.


This topic is also open to restrictions based on genes, religion, and criminal background. Also, feel free to entertain the idea of restricting the ability to vote unless a certain criteria is met: Passing a test/class, doing community work, etc...




EDIT: For some reason unknown to be another one of my post was either ignored or read incorrectly. So, at the risk of sounding redundant, the tl;dl version of my post boils down to, if you can not financially... support a child, then you should not be allowed to have a child. Other factors I would be willing to discuss such as you have to take a class of sorts to earn a child baring licenses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2011, 05:57 PM
RE: Partly facist...
I see where you are coming from, but I couldn`t disagree more.
What would you say is a leading factor in wealth and success.
I am relatively poor, I wasn`t always so, I wasn`t when I had my kid, but I am now, does that mean my kid should be taken from me. Where does the idea stop. Should ugly people be allowed to have kids. Should people with low IQs be allowed to have kids. Should people that disagree with my opinion on how cheese is great be allowed to have children. Being poor sucks, but so does peoples perception of what poor is. A good parent will always find ways to take care of their children. No matter what. Money does a good parent NOT make. It`s a poor way to judge a persons ability to raise a child successfully. I would think it would be more important that the parents genuinely love the child, and watch out for them. To raise them to be intelligent caring human beings.
It`s not even that I disagree with the opinion, it`s that everyones opinion is slightly different, so just when you think you have a set of rules that you can live with, someone else will want more.

Look at how much Paris Hiltons family rakes in each year... and she`s a poor excuse for a human being in my opinion.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2011, 06:41 PM
RE: Partly facist...
I can see your idea but I would rather that the criteria was linked to parenting rather than wealth.

Poor parents can make great parents so I wouldn't base it on that. I would look into the idea of banning someone who had had several kids and abused or neglected them from having kids. I read about a woman recently who had had twelve (I think) kids, all of whom had been taken off her as she was neglecting them and deemed an unfit mother. Rather than try to clean her act up and prove she could be a good mother she appeared in a magazine saying that she was just going to keep having babies until she was allowed to keep one.

I wouldn't lose sleep over someone like that being forcibly sterilised.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
25-06-2011, 07:41 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2011 07:49 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Partly facist...
(25-06-2011 05:57 PM)lucradis Wrote:  I see where you are coming from, but I couldn`t disagree more.
What would you say is a leading factor in wealth and success.
I am relatively poor, I wasn`t always so, I wasn`t when I had my kid, but I am now, does that mean my kid should be taken from me. Where does the idea stop. Should ugly people be allowed to have kids. Should people with low IQs be allowed to have kids. Should people that disagree with my opinion on how cheese is great be allowed to have children. Being poor sucks, but so does peoples perception of what poor is. A good parent will always find ways to take care of their children. No matter what. Money does a good parent NOT make. It`s a poor way to judge a persons ability to raise a child successfully. I would think it would be more important that the parents genuinely love the child, and watch out for them. To raise them to be intelligent caring human beings.
It`s not even that I disagree with the opinion, it`s that everyones opinion is slightly different, so just when you think you have a set of rules that you can live with, someone else will want more.


Look at how much Paris Hiltons family rakes in each year... and she`s a poor excuse for a human being in my opinion.

I think you paid why too much attention to the money issue. I frankly do not care if money makes a good parent or not. My parents could love me more than anyone else on the planet, love doesn't feed a child, love doesn't put a child through college. My issue with it isn't people that make 25k/year shouldn't have kids while people making 50k/year should. It's people who can not support themselves shouldn't have kids.

I think what is determined as " supporting " your child should be redefined.

People with abnormally low IQ's should NOT be allowed to have kids.

As for ugly people and cheese? Dude, irrelevant, completely. I had to come back to this, really? This was just a terrible response. My entire post was based on a parent earning the ability to have a child legally by having the financial income to support the child and you change my argument to people who disagree with you shouldn't have children? Come on man...

Quote:A good parent will always find ways to take care of their children.

Um? No, just because someone is a good parent in no way grants them some magical power to provide what they don't have for their child.

The child should have a right also and the right to have a child should be earned.

(25-06-2011 06:41 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I can see your idea but I would rather that the criteria was linked to parenting rather than wealth.

Poor parents can make great parents so I wouldn't base it on that. I would look into the idea of banning someone who had had several kids and abused or neglected them from having kids. I read about a woman recently who had had twelve (I think) kids, all of whom had been taken off her as she was neglecting them and deemed an unfit mother. Rather than try to clean her act up and prove she could be a good mother she appeared in a magazine saying that she was just going to keep having babies until she was allowed to keep one.

I wouldn't lose sleep over someone like that being forcibly sterilised.

This idea fixes the problem AFTER the problem occurred. Now these children have been brought up horribly and are now forced into the orphanage system of in and out of foster care.

As I will say before, the right to have a child needs to be earned. I am all for any idea, whether it be education, money, or a thorough class.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2011, 07:56 PM
RE: Partly facist...
(25-06-2011 07:41 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  This idea fixes the problem AFTER the problem occurred. Now these children have been brought up horribly and are now forced into the orphanage system of in and out of foster care.

As I will say before, the right to have a child needs to be earned. I am all for any idea, whether it be education, money, or a thorough class.

I'm not really for the whole 'earning the right to a child' idea. I think you cannot judge someones parenting abilities until they become a parent so people would need to be unrestricted on at least their first child.

An idea I've always liked is the idea of only giving people child benefit (or whatever the American equivalent is) for their first two children. After that they are on their own with no state help, if they cannot provide for subsequent children yet still choose to have them then their children should be taken from them as they are inadequate parents.

You could combine that idea with my original idea of sterilising sub-standard parents, would help prevent children being born into abuse and neglect and would prevent people from having several children that they couldn't afford.

Any thoughts?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2011, 07:59 PM
RE: Partly facist...
I don't think any opposition is irrelevant to what you posted. It just sounds more ridiculous to you because it's your opinion.

A good parent will find a way to feed their child actually, I do it ever day.

I placed more emphasis on the financial side because you did in your post as well.
Stupid people can make smart kids, it's possible, all I am saying is where is the line drawn? And who draws this line? Either way you try to sugar coat it, it's called control. I don't think anyone has that right.

Why do you think it's ok?

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2011, 08:50 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2011 09:00 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Partly facist...
@Hughsie

The problem remains...

You put the child at risk, THEN punish the parent? Meanwhile the child is now in and out of foster care.

What you just said was the exact same thing from your first post. You are punishing children to give someone a chance at proving themselves? What is so wrong with having people prove their selves PRIOR to placing a child in harms way. I really don't understand why someones rights to have a child is placed before the actual child. Can you at least address that? Why should someone's right to have a child trump the actual well being of a child.


@lucradis

By taking my OP and turning "Being financially able to support a child" Into, "you don't like cheese? No children for you" is rhetoric nonsense. My line might be vague, but give me a break, it isn't that vague. What you thrown it was just stupid, sorry, only way I could describe it.

As for "no one having the right" I will address this the same way I addressed Hugh's... Is it really too much to ask to have someone prove they are capable in some form of manner that they can raise a child? Where is the child's right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2011, 08:51 PM
RE: Partly facist...
Its a bad idea for parents who can't feed any children they may have to have children, and especially to continue having children. Its bad for the child, and just about everyone else in some way. I don't know if that would justify imposing rules like that on potential parents.
Perhaps this is sort of like communism, it works really well on paper, but would be impractical in the real world.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2011, 09:00 PM
RE: Partly facist...
(25-06-2011 08:50 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  @Hughsie

The problem remains...

You put the child at risk, THEN punish the parent? Meanwhile the child is now in and out of foster care.

What you just said was the exact same thing from your first post. You are punishing children to give someone a chance at proving themselves? What is so wrong with having people prove their selves PRIOR to placing a child in harms way. I really don't understand why someones rights to have a child is placed before the actual child. Can you at least address that? Why should someone's right to have a child trump the actual well being of a child.

Because we have no way of knowing the state of the childs well being until they are born if they are born to first time parents. How could anyone come up with a fair system to measure whether someone is a suitable parent before they have children, it just isn't possible.

Also I doubt banning someone from having children would be workable. The only way I can think of working it would be to sterilise people who prove inadequate parents but sterilising someone is a permanent procedure so it can hardly be used as a pre-emptive strike.

If you can think of a workable system to decide who is allowed to bear children and a way of implementing it then post it and I'll read it but good luck as I don't think it can be done.

My idea is imperfect, I'll be the first to admit that. However, if properly implemented it would have potential to improve the current system and, more importantly, it is workable.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2011, 09:07 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2011 09:19 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Partly facist...
(25-06-2011 09:00 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(25-06-2011 08:50 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  @Hughsie

The problem remains...

You put the child at risk, THEN punish the parent? Meanwhile the child is now in and out of foster care.

What you just said was the exact same thing from your first post. You are punishing children to give someone a chance at proving themselves? What is so wrong with having people prove their selves PRIOR to placing a child in harms way. I really don't understand why someones rights to have a child is placed before the actual child. Can you at least address that? Why should someone's right to have a child trump the actual well being of a child.


Because we have no way of knowing the state of the childs well being until they are born if they are born to first time parents. How could anyone come up with a fair system to measure whether someone is a suitable parent before they have children, it just isn't possible.

Also I doubt banning someone from having children would be workable. The only way I can think of working it would be to sterilise people who prove inadequate parents but sterilising someone is a permanent procedure so it can hardly be used as a pre-emptive strike.

If you can think of a workable system to decide who is allowed to bear children and a way of implementing it then post it and I'll read it but good luck as I don't think it can be done.

My idea is imperfect, I'll be the first to admit that. However, if properly implemented it would have potential to improve the current system and, more importantly, it is workable.

I am typing a response to this, but in the mean time, mind answering my question?

Quote:You are punishing children to give someone a chance at proving themselves? What is so wrong with having people prove their selves PRIOR to placing a child in harms way. I really don't understand why someones rights to have a child is placed before the actual child. Can you at least address that? Why should someone's right to have a child trump the actual well being of a child.

Okay, so we are really getting deep into details here. Lets start close to the top again. I want you to tell me what is wrong with asking something, anything, from a couple before they have a child. Maybe an evaluation of sorts? of their financial status, can they provide for this child? Do they have an extensive criminal record? Do they have an education, were they drop outs?

Again what is so wrong with asking something of people who want to be the caretaker of a human being...

Quote:Also I doubt banning someone from having children would be workable. The only way I can think of working it would be to sterilise people who prove inadequate parents but sterilising someone is a permanent procedure so it can hardly be used as a pre-emptive strike.

Vasectomies are reversible. But I am not saying sterilize everyone, I am saying make it illegal and force abortion if ignored with either jail time that follows or fines.

Quote:Because we have no way of knowing the state of the childs well being until they are born if they are born to first time parents.

I am not the best at this, but I am making roughly 16k a year, a have a disposable income of roughly 200$. This is not enough to provide food, clothing, medical, and education fund for a child. I am not suitable to care of a child at this time. If you allow me to have a child, I think the odds are against the well being of this child.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: