Is giving birth to children one is unable to feed, raise and handle immoral?

Immoral for ill-fit parents to have children?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 84.0%
  • No

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Status
Not open for further replies.

justMe7

Well-Known Member
#41
Maybe you're right. Infact you are... I suppose I apologize to Kharma, I did act in a dickish way. In the end, despite his conclusions, he brings up extremely valid points. It's just when you start saying.. it is immoral for us "all", for any context of a problem.. that feels like an assualt. Maybe it's an assualt of reality, but it's an invasive perspective in it's own way that shouldn't be forced upon everyone, but honestly chosen as a concious choice to avoid or accept, simply because it defines who we are. If we have to live by the perspective moralities of any mass, it changes who we would naturally become in our environment and .. people. Species.. however you want to look at it. When you go that deep, and then say it is immoral to have a child, which is at the very least one our natural aspects.. that's a very direct challenge and connection between us all. It puts a realistic heavy weight there... I suppose if it works for someone.. but damn. The problems associated to over population shouldn't be the deterent or reason we look,(and find) that everyone is a person and we're doing this all together.
That's a choice... a very connective reflective choice. (well it's very much your own, and what that means to you I don't know... I just know that when you "know" that "we" are immoral for not taking every one of our species into account for one of the most natural aspects of what makes us who we are.. that's a compromise. One we're challenging in our own socities so we can maintain our own in our construction. But if we took realistically every issue of every country into consideration and looked at a level of "acceptable" living conditions, and contrasted our "excess" of this acceptable living in our own countries.. we'd fuel a massive guilt trip, consumption, recreation, progression shift.
We don't. Because we hope that the children we bring into our societies, countries, families, "are free" to take what they want into consideration and not be born into guilt.
A child born tomorrow would be born under the guise that we have a overpopulation issue and have this geared in a overall directional drive that encompasses us as a whole. Simply because, essentially it's immoral to have children at this point.
So no more children.

You explain that one to me. The immorality isn't with children being brought into the world, it's on how we see the individual, ......... "we" to "you" "me" "i" . You're telling me I have to stop even comprehending something, to compromise for "my" "brother", "sister", "Neighbour", future............ and really it's not about the children or that. But the rationals you're guilt tripping(making "We you me i" aware of) make "We you me i" aware and able to comprehend a series of overall compounding issues that moral.......
ug. Maybe my frustration wasn't with you Kharma... but it's to have to battle this position again. It's crafty.... feels like a massive guilt trip, and for all the wrong reasons.

We are morally working together to come together so we can make overall choices and actions that affect the betterment of our species, without destroying an aspect of our species with our intervention.

Something like that.. you don't tell people those positions are immoral. It would be immoral for our socities to collapse to that point before we were tackeling every single problem that we accepted as a whole that was leading to this issue.
... i want a more refined reason why we work together, not one based off of the fear of destruction or any negative reasons that bring about unification to enmass decide the fact of another living beings lifestyle. We can barely understand our own, and with every single new conclusion and definition, we adapt out of it to still be free of our own definitions. Or try to. Forcing unification is forcing the idealogy to fracture. It's not something you make our life, or neighbours or friends or families or partners or yourself have to do. It's something we should ... well are being forced to understand and "transitionalize" into that choice. But slamming that it's immoral to have a child now is an echo at best to the future.
Fine...

So you've compromised? Why should anyone else compromise like you do. Why should I be forced to take onboard the problems of our species as a whole, ..........
I don't know why I have to defend myself to those sorts of statments. You've made that choice for yourself. It would be down right stupid for our countries to realistically start looking at everyones problems in the world all at once. It'd drain us till we knew we couldn't compromise. Then we'd hold and try to enjoy our lives while always aware of the suffering of other people in their lifes. Effectively gearing us to tackel one of the major aspects of who we are "again en mass" when parts of our natural freedom, is put through a checklist of what we can realistically take into consideration, because of everyone else.

The immorality(if you want to..) for the creation of this overall problem of over population was lost along time ago by simply exploration away from the whole, and a disconnection of the whole and our planet. You're mentally grounding everyone to the dirt we stand on, to the realistic representation of our existences, through a defined perception on life that is enforced. In the beginning stages... by morality.
So I do say fuck you for being loud about it. Because I don't think you will change your position, so the morality I have that makes me feel it is alright to have a child.. i won't let be destroyed by the weight of the world. So I'd rather contribute to saving the freedom that is associated with that, instead of making someone who by no fault of their own is, was, will be born into this world, have to suffer and endure that weighting direction mentality. Morality is supposed to be a becon, at best. Not a ................. grr..
Messing about with morality, the things that connect every single person about. Maybe it wasn't you, maybe it was the basis of this question, just stamped about.

Too many people are living their own lives and have been based off of the ways they were born into, that was the foundations for all of our countries more or less. Freedom.
Unification of a whole that retains the respect for all life that has been sought out can't come at the compromise if morality issues.. or our freedoms that we have strived to maintain and emphasis so that we can all exist without ...

That's precious. So the idea of something more precious should be there for everyone well before the abuse of our freedoms is put to the challenge. Infact it sorta demands it. The guilt trip that causes those questions to come about is .. a bad way of moving forward. Guilt tripping yourself or anyone to move is making them do something. They're not doing it.
Manipulating them into doing it against their knowledge is wrong. There are no right way of shouting at the world, you are wrong. Not on the basis of having children, or continueing on our species.

Anyhow, you can't stop births. We need the continued evolution if you want to diverge the topic. So you're selecting who has children, which is the more "genetically" fit. Which comes with it all those defining qualities we so readily breath in an label on ourselves(hopefully not) about why and who we are. What we are, .. what i am. Who i am.
Children come with so much, they come with every essence of freedom we have in ourselves. Or .. to level it. A quick fuck.

It's a quick guilt trip into imposing and unifying the world. And one that shouldnt be explored. We are at best ignorant, but not immoral. Society speaks to the people very softly.. envoking what society says is dangerously like a dog chasing it's own tail. Until someone starts taking charge and using these accepted problems to motivate and enforce certain "acceptable" practices.

Society is stupid. It flares up occassioanly. But it's acceptable compromise that moves with it's moral actions can be strenuous on people when they are forced to adhere to them. When naturally, they're striving to remove the problem.

Your immorality with the world.... ... idk how to say this, but if you want to be honest, if you feel that's immoral. You must feel alot of shits immoral, and be morally outraged by the usage and justifactions for our ways of life in contrast to how other people in our world live.
I think they call that transition, or should.. one of the main bonds between society and the people that encompass it.

Why should you feel guilty for someone dying and suffering and not having the freedoms and abilties to breath, eat, dream, move, think, chose, act, play, experience that you do. Shouldnt you if you want to motivate yourself, .... remember you are not alone, and there are ways of contributing to dealing with these problems, so you can freely on your own concious be able to feel free about having a child.
Feels like a manipulative response to me... CAuse i dont understand what you mean. I dont understand how you can connect with everyone like that...

Unless this isnt your primary concern, and your worried about the array of morality our socities that do have these freedoms are expressing themselves.
That's not your fault. But if you feel so passionate about it, ....

Explain your point of view. Cause im already terrified . What if we make a mistake ;) What if we take away from someone something that was never there just by whispering the idea.
Then.. i think your fucked. Cause you're taking everything on board. And really... :(
When it comes to unity, Id rather that was about something productive .. than finding itself through guilt and suffering. It's just using unification as a bandade..


I donno. You can smite my responses down for not being respective, or diplomatic or logical or even making sense. Drivel as you put it... But when you come barging in and turning a clash between the individual and a group body into a blanketed easy answer.. it's giving up on what everyone has been living and enduring. The ones alive, the ones dead... the ones who have a moment of hope for something better than what they're stuck in. The compromise is a snake eating it's own tail now.. Simply saying stop is ...
"who gave you that right?" It's personal choice. You can't fault people who were born in a free society from being who they are, and contrasting what they are doing to the suffering of someone else.
Well you can, but that's just dropping the book, and not looking at the realities that are creating these problems. Sure you may know and see a system that is and has been fueling suffering in the world. Ill drop this in there, most people are never aware of it. We get hints, but we are allowed to live in our lives as free as we can in princple. .. And that is being challenged and refined.

We dont understand ourselves nor eachother enough to work together. So blanketing people with immoral statments is .. No.
The specific situations are horrible enough as it is as we all start seeing them and realising we can't hide from them in our own countries. Tackeling the safety of the world and halting our natural/refined progress is so dangerous. The world should work together to create a way for everyone to live equally and with opportunities, and the ability to ..

idk. I just get very opposed to being forced to accept anything because i was born in this time. People choose to stand up against abuses while protecting the most free parts of what makes us what we are. or who they are.. or however you want to see it.

You are free to make your own opinons, and state your own objections. So why would you use your freedom to impose restrictions on someone elses freedoms? Why not try to take away the honest suffering and pain of this world and give these people the opportunity to have a real free life of these parts of our existence?
That's very general... and full of abuse in itself.

We look after our own.. we still are struggeling to see that everyone is part of something. Infact, alot of people strive to not be part of a whole. If we had the capacity to help honest real situations we would. But you have then, subjective interpretation of when someone is morally or immorally fit to have a child. People don't need the weight of the world on their shoulders when they are considering having a child. That's a long term theft of something so very precious. It's bad enough when we do it to the individual, let alone every person.
Society tries.. but ..
<--- blah blah blah

If you believe the world needs dictating too.. :( When I said dangerous breed... I was serious. It's a delicate thing to even comprehend.. the fact that you feel closed to it, says to me you feel the pressure of everything else, over who you are. If you wanted a child, and could give it the best possible free life and opportunity? You shouldnt be challenged. Infact.. the challenge or anyone assuming they can challenge you or anyone makes my skin crawl. Who has that right? And what justifications are they using to dilute your freedom and life? .. and what options are they give to challenge these real issues,..
Telling someone no, vs trying to help are completely different intrusions.

It's important to remember how precious having a child is. "do it with joy or don't do it at all". That's where it at some place sorta stems from. Having a child is beautiful... dont forget that the next time you say it's immoral for someone to have a child. If it's ignorance.. remind or help.. if it's abuse? ... oh fucking hell. Thats the scariest problem :( or one of them.

problems get abused by the best of intentions
 
Last edited by a moderator:

justMe7

Well-Known Member
#42
One forfeits her right to have or raise a child when the rights of the child are being negatively impacted, especially long-term effects.
I defiantly agree. It's just, a bit open ended with that wording. ..............

Well, since no one is replying, probably my fault for being so invasive and hostile. But whatever.. it's a decent topic. I'm suprized no ones posted on the fact that I idlely stated it is ok for someone to state wether or not someone has the Right to be and do what they are. Be my definition, they are stating that this person is no longer one of them, us. They have stepped out of the realm of acceptable behavior that we can see and understand, and allow to be subjected to a new life coming into this world.
To me that is invasion, and I was horribly wrong from a realistic point of view. But in another realistic point of view, I am right. What do you do when someone wants a child to only bare that child into slavery and suffering? What do you do when they life is being brought into this world and will be purposely subjected to pains and suffering that even the most understanding parts of who we are, are appauled to even comprehend?

What do we do? It's not right, it's a choice of acceptable behavior that we stand for, and repel against. Is this right? No. But it's a choice we make to survive and keep the best parts of what we are alive. So the challenge starts with, when does one entity state over another whether it can do or think or be one thing. Dominance over another..
It's the tools they use to envoke these decisions. It's extremely egotistical to state you understand the beginnings of life, or to even comprhend you understand how life works. Cause life at the very least is more than just this. More than just us, more than just what we find as common bonds, more than what we fear, more than what we love. It encompasses everything, and is even more. All we are doing is emphasising our aspects, our accepted practices and deciplines, so we whittle out perceptual "imperfections" and "protecting" those who choice actions, but fail to see rammifications of those actions. Or the impacts of others. Interfering...

When I said it was ok to interfere.. I was basising that on the person who has a child to sell a child. To experiment on the child. To use the child. To control and dictate the child through their own perceptual and life desires.
Even then.... 1 to 1 how can you truly say it is wrong. It is a moral choice, and morality is more or less exactly what you make it out to be. Common grounding that morality flows through all life and this and that... How can I say to someone about to blow someones brains out that it is wrong? All Im doing is interfering, subjecting them to a possibility, and connection they are or have dissolved in that moment, which allows other aspects of their own nature to flurish and permit them to perform this act.

Thing is.. lets say someone is having children but killing them :S and then continues to have a child. Now this is a personal problem, and as a society or group of people or even individuals, we repel this direction. But how do we do it? Do we attack the fabric of what makes this person who and what they are, and then "unwind" and "rewire" them? Do we contain them? Do we dissect them with remorse for the rammifcational damage we are causing? The hypocritical actions and injection of ourselves into another life dissolves under the weight of the "morality" we flant about to emphasis our "right" to attack another person(s) "right".

Literally, when you are stating to someone they have lost their rights? You have essentially isolated them, and created an enemy. Their own unit of life. They have lost their rights as far as our species goes. IN YOUR eyes. We were all born free, regardless of what into, and what was done to us. So... again, i draw back to this question. Losing rights? Anyone even comprehending that they have any power or position to even comprehend creating and then altering the "rights" of another person is so sorely mistaken. What rights are we talking about? There are the rights of society, then there is the freedom and right of life. So idk where this is coming from. Assualting those who make honest mistakes or assualting those who are making milicious choices regardless of who gets affected. All this is doing is attacking the fabric of what we are. Doesn't mean we have the right to interfere. In the moment..
If this person is part of a society, and is having a child for the most deplorable of self serving reasons?(like to experiment on.. those darker parts we dare not comprhend) ... that's the evil or part of life we don't understand, and decide to intervene in. Is that right? ... idk. I honestly don't know, but in our bubble lives, it is the right thing to do. Suffering, pain, limitations, alteration, control... we strive to remove these from peoples lives. So if someone is 100% out for the "other side" of what makes us who we are... yes, we attack that. Do they lose their rights? The rights we give them or the rights that make them who they are, and that they were born with? No. It is at the very least our responsibility to not compromise who we are for the sake of subduing the most intense of evils. Does it work? No, we compromise.. we shut them up before anyone hears them. And those people that do do this,... they compromise more than what anyone reading or hearing about it gets. Cause they are the ones enforcing those "ideaologies". Does it mean it's right? It's right for the masses. IT's right for the child. It's right for the person you are trying to change. It's right for the future you are trying to expand and share. It's right for your own peace at night. It's right for alot of things...

Doesn't make it right. But we compromise from a whole, to give the best that we can for everyone around. And it's getting fucking annoying. Because of the applicable abuse. Save one, let lose 100 avenuse for abuse based off of the justifyable reasons. It's acceptable compromise.

Someone whom is addicted to drugs, with no support, living on the street, selling her body, dissolving her mind and soul.. wanting a child? It's fucking rediculous. It's contrary to every foundation we have made and discovered. Does that mean we can stop her based off of attacking her rights?? No At the very best, you're saying as a whole, we can't stand by and watch this happen. We want to help, we want something better for you so that... ect
Saving a possible tommorrows life at the expense of todays is a dodgy subject, and it's riddled everywhere, like as Kharma so inputted. Licenses on our freedoms. Who the hell ... what the hell? When the fuck?? Oh wait right I remember... It makes sense. Ill just accept it. Maybe the whole freaken beginning and foundation is a lie and fucked up but emphasised to keep what we have going on from collapsing under it's own hypocracy. Oh but look at what we have... look at all it's greatness and perseverence. It continues on and on and on.
Morality...
Rights...
bringing more life into this lie? This dream? This Creation? This child?

If you're going to bullshit someone into seeing your views, do it with the best of intentions. And watch it all crumble to shit, or watch someone change. Convert and become a stencil of what you believe. If we're talking about people who are trying their best with the shit they are given? FUCK TELLING THEM. They are existing the best that they can. You have absolutly no right in a society to do that. And thinking you have a life position to do that? Ha.... you're just envoking your own personal life into anothers. Something you "want us to be". Something you "need us to be". Something you "need to be". Control. And it's getting so bad. So very sly and "understandable".
You have no rights to dictate to another. Even if your connection is a projected connection to a future life. Or a connection to some spiritual or infinte realm that sources all life from. You're imposing something, something that we believe is better and good. All constructs of friction from our own environment and life.

If it's someone who believes in something good, and is making a choice to have a child but cannot look after that child? They need a reminder so that the things they believe in are there and honestly felt so that they can be shared with this child, and then they need to re-evaluate everything, on their own. Still... in one sense.. it is immoral to bring a child into a bullshit world. Still.. it is so morally right to bring a child into this world, because today we are trying and tomorrow holds any number of possibilities. Unless we start compromising more and more at the states of where we begin. Writing our own demise, or someone elses demise. Sorta the basis of freedom, and trying to give people the most options that they can have, and passing on that respect for life.

Next you're going to have two mentally handicapped people(if you consider people who have a handicapp people?(moral delimia numero 2?..)) who want to have a child. Whadda do when you know they can't look after the child? Help them? ...Stop them? What do you do.
What do you do when a drug addict gets pregnant? isolate her off the drugs? (ie help her?(at what controlling state are you helping her?))

What a scary topic. Imagine if people were convinced that morally we had to stop having children for the sake of the world/country/region. What would they compromise to enforce this discipline? Who would they become. ..
Fucking beats me why people abuse children or having children for malicious reasons. Beats me why people are attacked by society indirectly for years, and when their bodies and feelings are in tune for a child in one sense, or they want a child for the best of reasons, but can not becaue society says you cannot bring up that child to "our" (who the fuck made us all "US" anyhow) standards, you cant.

She loses her rights... herm........ Whatever. Atleast I'll fix my mistake, cause Im not fueling that limited bridge. Be honest about it. Your society doesn't give you rights. You are born with them, in or out of any society. Cause you're you. I suppose inside of a society? Well.. hello dictatorship in the guise of freedom. Bullshit. Anyhow.. what do you do when someone is going to destroy a future life? How do you know? Should you interfere with violence and control? Or show a better way of life and try to offer and help? When do you draw a line. When do you step in and say, it's too late, you arent changing, and we have to change this for the sake of the child. What if it's a pregnant parent who knows their child is going to be born with a mental handicapp, but refuses a treatment that could save the child from a life time of suffering? Oh hello gentitic screening.. oh hello alteration pre-birth. Hello, in our image. our accepted image.. hello egotistical bullshit. Hello.. respect for life? Hello respect for freedom. ... hello justifyable chaos. Anyhow... idk. But this little concept you've thrown in is a fucker, and ill stop posting in here because im making no sense of it how you probably wanted it to. I just.. idk why but I control is progressive. But at what cost?
ps im a bit unsure as to how we can even impose ourselves into other peoples lives. Or other lifeforms lives. It's very confusing.. and ultimatly.. very.. it's choice to survive and adapt and enjoy and.. ug. It's egotistical to be honest. But when you get past that and just "care" .. it's progressive, and dangerous. And controlling.. and .. stuff.
 

TheLoneWolf

Well-Known Member
#44
I think what SBlake is saying is that you're wading into dangerous territory when you talk about things like requiring licenses for people to have children. On the surface, it may seem like a good idea - there are so many bad parents in the world; you need a license to drive a car, and raising a child is a hell of a lot more difficult and important than operating a motor vehicle... however, reproduction is essentially a human right, and I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with a government, corporation, or individual trying to tell another individual what they can or can't do with their own bodies. Of course the situation changes once they bring another life into the world, for at that point it is no longer just an issue of one person's right to have a child, but also of that child's right to be provided for and to live a life free from abuse. Most modern societies have rules in place regarding the treatment of children, though, so for the most part this is a non-issue, or at least it is an issue that has already been solved - albeit not perfectly, but there are never perfect solutions to complex problems. This discussion seems to have diverged from its original theme - the question was whether or not it was IMMORAL for an unfit parent to bring a child into the world, not whether or not they should have the RIGHT to. Society may think gambling, alcohol consumption, and adultery are IMMORAL, but that doesn't mean that they should be ILLEGAL. Morals are subjective, and morality should never be the basis for passing laws or denying a person their inherent human rights.
 

Prinnctopher's Belt

Antiquities Friend
SF Supporter
#45
But you're comfortable with the government criminalizing rapist's "right" to do whatever they want with their bodies, which adversely affects other people, right? Birthing someone in a world, knowing that they can barely feed them, can't teach them anything, is a terrible parent, is essentially raping the child of rights they would have otherwise. Yes, prospective parents should be required to go through some form of testing to prove their capability of rearing another human being. There's no way in hell a crackhead who beats the living hell out of the kids she already has, should have a "right" to do the same thing to more human beings, and if it's in any entity's control to prevent the suffering and torture of future generations under such a "parent", then I support it being done.

Being a mother is not a right; it's a privilege. When you prove to be poor at what you've been privileged to have, then you lose that privilege.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheLoneWolf

Well-Known Member
#46
No, you're putting words into my mouth. A person who abuses their children should have their children taken away from them, and depending on the degree of the abuse, they could and should also face criminal charges. People who are that unfit as parents are also unfit as citizens, and should be removed from society and placed in the care of the penal system where they should be (theoretically at least) unable to reproduce.

I think you make a lot of erroneous assumptions about me. I grew up in an abusive household - not by my biological parents, but by a stepparent. My parents aren't bad people, and most likely would have passed any kind of "reproductive rights" test you could think of. Yet I still had a shitty childhood after they divorced. I mean, the government requires people to take tests to get a driver's license... so then why are there still car accidents all the time? There are a lot of morons on the road who are licensed to drive for whatever reason, why do you think requiring licenses to have children would be any different? Are you going to force sterilization on people who don't pass your tests or prohibit them from having sexual relationships? That sounds incredibly fascist to me. Who makes these standards? Who decides who is an "acceptable parent" versus one who is not? What makes you think that this system wouldn't be just as prone to corruption and abuse as any other government body?
 

Prinnctopher's Belt

Antiquities Friend
SF Supporter
#47
No, you're putting words into my mouth.

I think you make a lot of erroneous assumptions about me.
Nothing in my post is an assumption about you except for the general statement that you (the plural form, as in the general public) favor laws that criminalize one form of a person abusing the rights of others. And I never said "you said" anything so I couldn't have put words into your mouth.
 

Prinnctopher's Belt

Antiquities Friend
SF Supporter
#48
A person who abuses their children should have their children taken away from them, and depending on the degree of the abuse, they could and should also face criminal charges. People who are that unfit as parents are also unfit as citizens, and should be removed from society and placed in the care of the penal system where they should be (theoretically at least) unable to reproduce.

I grew up in an abusive household - not by my biological parents, but by a stepparent. My parents aren't bad people, and most likely would have passed any kind of "reproductive rights" test you could think of. Yet I still had a shitty childhood after they divorced. I mean, the government requires people to take tests to get a driver's license... so then why are there still car accidents all the time? There are a lot of morons on the road who are licensed to drive for whatever reason, why do you think requiring licenses to have children would be any different? Are you going to force sterilization on people who don't pass your tests or prohibit them from having sexual relationships? That sounds incredibly fascist to me. Who makes these standards? Who decides who is an "acceptable parent" versus one who is not? What makes you think that this system wouldn't be just as prone to corruption and abuse as any other government body?
There aren't guarantees in anything, but just because some convicts are later proven to have been innocent of a crime, doesn't mean the law criminalizing what they were accused of is illegitimate or unnecessary, for example. You understand? So just because a system can be misused doesn't make the need for the system obsolete. People are convicted of rape, for example, that they never committed; does that make sexual abuse laws fascist and wrong? No. Just as requiring people to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle with human beings at risk of injury or death, despite car accidents being prevalent, isn't fascist or wrong. These are reasonable measures, in my opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheLoneWolf

Well-Known Member
#49
Nothing in my post is an assumption about you except for the general statement that you (the plural form, as in the general public) favor laws that criminalize one form of a person abusing the rights of others. And I never said "you said" anything so I couldn't have put words into your mouth.
You did say "you", and by that I assumed you meant me. Apologies if I misinterpreted your point.
 

TheLoneWolf

Well-Known Member
#50
There aren't guarantees in anything, but just because some convicts are later proven to have been innocent of a crime, doesn't mean the law criminalizing what they were accused of is illegitimate or unnecessary, for example. You understand? So just because a system can be misused doesn't make the need for the system obsolete. People are convicted of rape, for example, that they never committed; does that make sexual abuse laws fascist and wrong? No. Just as requiring people to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle with human beings at risk of injury or death, despite car accidents being prevalent, isn't fascist or wrong. These are reasonable measures, in my opinion.
Actually, I do think it's wrong for people to be convicted of a crime they didn't commit. That's a travesty of justice, and one that undermines the ethical justification for the law itself. And I do think it's fascist for the government to be telling people what they can or can't do with their own bodies. If two adults want to have consensual sex, that is their business, and the government has no right to tell them otherwise. If said consensual sex results in pregnancy, the government has no right to terminate that pregnancy. The government also has no right to forcibly sterilize people... exceptions could be made for say a serial rapist who has been convicted beyond any reasonable doubt of his crimes. Now, if after giving birth to a child, it is found that the couple is unfit to raise said child - either because the child is being abused or not properly cared for, then the government can step in and take that child out of the home and place it into foster care or in the home of a more responsible relative.

But let's play devil's advocate here and assume that we had a licensing program for would be parents. What would be the criteria? Submit a financial application and pay a processing fee? Take a personality test? An IQ test??? I find it troubling that you don't find this idea troubling. Talk about an extreme case of social engineering - creating a bureaucratic body that determines who is eligible to reproduce? I can already see the racist and classist undertones of such an idea. You don't think a sociopath can manipulate a personality profile? Ironically, the most twisted and manipulative people are the ones who would likely score the best on any kind of "parenting ability test". Raising children isn't an exact science, and NO kind of test could ever determine what kind of parent somebody will actually be when placed in that situation. It isn't like driving - it isn't something you can learn in an hour in a parking lot. Though ironically, an hour in a parking lot is all that it takes to produce another human being... I digress. My point is that some of the people who you might think would make the worst parents end up being the best parents, and vice versa.

True, some people have no business having children, and that is why we have systems like Child Protective Services to come in and analyze a situation like that - though even in cases where CPS is called, they will usually work with the parents to see if they can correct the bad behaviors rather than "abducting" the children straight out of the home... because they realize that doing so would likely upset a number of people, myself included. I am not at all comfortable with the idea of having to get a permit to be allowed to have sex to pass on my genes. Not because I don't think I would qualify, because I'm almost certain that I would pass any kind of test that they gave me - not because I think I'd make an excellent parent, but because I am intelligent enough to tell them what they'd want to hear. And that's my whole point. A lot of child abuse is inflicted by relatives, stepparents, babysitters and family friends... so do they all have to get permits also? Who's in charge of setting the criteria for all of these people? What do we do, go down to the local DPS (Department of Parenting Services), stand in line for 4 hours, pay a fee, take a written exam, demonstrate our parenting abilities at the local daycare? Take a diaper changing test? I mean seriously. The whole idea is absurd. Parenting is a right, NOT a privilege... the two primary inate goals of every species on this earth are to (1) survive and (2) reproduce. If you require people to have licenses to bear children, then perhaps we should also require people to prove their eligibility to survive. I mean, why waste precious resources supporting the lives of people who don't live up to our elitist standards? Why let some poor person breathe our air and drink our water? If we've already determined that they aren't fit to have children, then why even allow them to coexist with us? Maybe we should just gas them all. Between that and forced sterilization of undesirables, it's only a matter of time before we're living in a perfect society. Right?

Hmm... where have I heard that idea before...?
 

Prinnctopher's Belt

Antiquities Friend
SF Supporter
#51
Actually, I do think it's wrong for people to be convicted of a crime they didn't commit. That's a travesty of justice, and one that undermines the ethical justification for the law itself. And I do think it's fascist for the government to be telling people what they can or can't do with their own bodies. If two adults want to have consensual sex, that is their business, and the government has no right to tell them otherwise. If said consensual sex results in pregnancy, the government has no right to terminate that pregnancy. The government also has no right to forcibly sterilize people... exceptions could be made for say a serial rapist who has been convicted beyond any reasonable doubt of his crimes. Now, if after giving birth to a child, it is found that the couple is unfit to raise said child - either because the child is being abused or not properly cared for, then the government can step in and take that child out of the home and place it into foster care or in the home of a more responsible relative.

But let's play devil's advocate here and assume that we had a licensing program for would be parents. What would be the criteria? Submit a financial application and pay a processing fee? Take a personality test? An IQ test??? I find it troubling that you don't find this idea troubling. Talk about an extreme case of social engineering - creating a bureaucratic body that determines who is eligible to reproduce? I can already see the racist and classist undertones of such an idea. You don't think a sociopath can manipulate a personality profile? Ironically, the most twisted and manipulative people are the ones who would likely score the best on any kind of "parenting ability test". Raising children isn't an exact science, and NO kind of test could ever determine what kind of parent somebody will actually be when placed in that situation. It isn't like driving - it isn't something you can learn in an hour in a parking lot. Though ironically, an hour in a parking lot is all that it takes to produce another human being... I digress. My point is that some of the people who you might think would make the worst parents end up being the best parents, and vice versa.

True, some people have no business having children, and that is why we have systems like Child Protective Services to come in and analyze a situation like that - though even in cases where CPS is called, they will usually work with the parents to see if they can correct the bad behaviors rather than "abducting" the children straight out of the home... because they realize that doing so would likely upset a number of people, myself included. I am not at all comfortable with the idea of having to get a permit to be allowed to have sex to pass on my genes. Not because I don't think I would qualify, because I'm almost certain that I would pass any kind of test that they gave me - not because I think I'd make an excellent parent, but because I am intelligent enough to tell them what they'd want to hear. And that's my whole point. A lot of child abuse is inflicted by relatives, stepparents, babysitters and family friends... so do they all have to get permits also? Who's in charge of setting the criteria for all of these people? What do we do, go down to the local DPS (Department of Parenting Services), stand in line for 4 hours, pay a fee, take a written exam, demonstrate our parenting abilities at the local daycare? Take a diaper changing test? I mean seriously. The whole idea is absurd. Parenting is a right, NOT a privilege... the two primary inate goals of every species on this earth are to (1) survive and (2) reproduce. If you require people to have licenses to bear children, then perhaps we should also require people to prove their eligibility to survive. I mean, why waste precious resources supporting the lives of people who don't live up to our elitist standards? Why let some poor person breathe our air and drink our water? If we've already determined that they aren't fit to have children, then why even allow them to coexist with us? Maybe we should just gas them all. Between that and forced sterilization of undesirables, it's only a matter of time before we're living in a perfect society. Right?

Hmm... where have I heard that idea before...?
I'm not going to read all of that and continue to go back and forth with you if you're not understanding this perspective. So let's sum it up.

A) 21 to three agree morality is compromised when a child is born to ill-fit parents.

B) There's no prevention in waiting until damage is done to children and then acting on an epidemic which is mostly preventive.

C) Having children go through foster homes and being tossed from one place to another via Child Protective Services and a slew of social workers, counselors, changing into different schools *if* they're in school, psychologists, etc is preposterous. This is why nature gave us intelligence to be able to determine when conditions are best for raising a child, and for judging whether we are fit to continue making offspring.

It is immoral and selfish to bring a child into a world of such chaos where the child has to struggle more than should be necessary. The purpose of reproducing is so that the future generations will overcome the struggles, torments, and transgressions of the past generations - not inherit and continue them on the same road. If we aren't bringing children into a better world where they can do better than we did, and be better than we were, then the cycle of reproduction loses purpose and a moral advantage, just having babies left and right without regard to what they will be raised around.


TheLoneWolf said:
I do think it's wrong for people to be convicted of a crime they didn't commit. That's a travesty of justice, and one that undermines the ethical justification for the law itself. And I do think it's fascist for the government to be telling people what they can or can't do with their own bodies. [...] The government also has no right to forcibly sterilize people... exceptions could be made for say a serial rapist who has been convicted beyond any reasonable doubt of his crimes.
Innocent people have been convicted with evidence that was perceived to have been "beyond any reasonable doubt" for crimes they didn't commit. Juries are instructed to convict if the weight of evidence presented, as perceived by each juror, is beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, they must acquit. This happens, yes. Recently it was in the news that a young man who was accused and convicted of rape, had spent five years in prison before his accuser came forward and admitted that her accusations were false - and after five years, he was released from prison; but sent originally based on evidence that was seen as beyond a reasonable doubt. So, simply because someone was convicted of a crime (all criminal convictions have to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the way) doesn't always mean they're guilty; just like an acquittal doesn't always mean a defendant is innocent.

Now, I know what you're trying to say: "The gubmint can't control us! rah rah rah!" But if people can't control their reproducing habits and are proven bad or absent parents, then by your own admission the government "can step in and take that child out of the home." It's in the best interest of the children (which is the only individual here that matters in these matters) to institute measures that prevent the whole suffering from taking place at all.

As far as how it would done and what kind of measures isn't what's being discussed. I'm simply presenting the question of whether it is immoral to give birth to children one knowingly cannot feed, raise, nor handle, in one's own personal opinion. Mine is yes, many others' is yes. Yours and a couple others' is no. Agree to disagree because nobody is changing anyone else's opinion on this, but hopefully there is some understanding from a different perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheLoneWolf

Well-Known Member
#52
I do understand your point of view, and I did say that it was immoral for somebody to bring a child into the world knowing that they would be a shitty parent. If somebody has already proven themselves to be ill fit as a parent, then of course society has the right to step in to prevent a child from suffering further. But you seem to be suggesting that the government should have the right to control what people do before they've even done anything wrong. How is this NOT a violation of human rights? "Controlling people because they can't control themselves" - that kind of logic could be used to justify all sorts of Orwellian bullshit.

I know you think you're in the majority on this one, but I'll bet that if you put the matter to a democratic vote, your proposition would lose in a landslide. In fact, go ahead and try it - petition to get a law put on the ballot that would require all would-be parents of childbearing age to obtain a permit before having sex... see how well that works out for you. Of course most people agree that people shouldn't bring a child into the world when they're not fit to, but how many of them are willing to trade in their rights just to "maybe theoretically" prevent a small percentage of child abuse?
 

Prinnctopher's Belt

Antiquities Friend
SF Supporter
#53
I do understand your point of view, and I did say that it was immoral for somebody to bring a child into the world knowing that they would be a shitty parent. If somebody has already proven themselves to be ill fit as a parent, then of course society has the right to step in to prevent a child from suffering further.
End of debate. I ain't interested in any of that additional stuff. The topic is the question. Everything else is speculative, argumentative roundabout. Question --> Response. Simple. The only reason I've posted additional and lengthy responses is to clean up where the thread has gone and get back to the primary topic. So, perspectives understood, debate over. This is the part where other people get to chime in without feeling like they're interrupting the same repetitive posts going back and forth.
 

TheLoneWolf

Well-Known Member
#55
End of debate. I ain't interested in any of that additional stuff. The topic is the question. Everything else is speculative, argumentative roundabout. Question --> Response. Simple. The only reason I've posted additional and lengthy responses is to clean up where the thread has gone and get back to the primary topic. So, perspectives understood, debate over. This is the part where other people get to chime in without feeling like they're interrupting the same repetitive posts going back and forth.
The topic was whether or not it was immoral, not whether or not people should have to obtain licenses to have children. If you ask me whether or not I think it's immoral for unfit parents to knowingly bring a child into the world when they have no intentions of properly caring for them, the answer is yes. All that additional stuff you're not interested in is what you and others added to the debate after the fact, and that's what I took issue with, not the original topic. There's a huge difference between judging something as being immoral versus giving the government legislative power over people's reproductive organs. But yeah, I think we both made our points, and we both agree on the problem, we just differ on the solutions. Agree to disagree. Sorry if I bored or offended you in any way, that was not my intent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please Donate to Help Keep SF Running

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$255.00
Top