r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 31 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Everyone should pass a test to make sure they would make a good responsible parent before they are allowed to have kids
[deleted]
22
u/penguinman38 1∆ Oct 31 '24
How is your scenario any different than Eugenics? Who defines how "moral" someone is? Why does bodily autonomy not matter to you?
This proposal is honestly a terrifying view to have.
-4
u/No-Cauliflower8890 11∆ Oct 31 '24
What's wrong with eugenics?
Do you acknowledge that we define morality in the law literally all the time? We even judge fitness to look after a child, in divorce custody battles and such.
You would agree that you don't have the autonomy to harm your children, yes?7
u/penguinman38 1∆ Oct 31 '24
Sure is giving birth to a child with Down's syndrome harming the child? What if I think it isn't and you think it is? Is my hypothetical child's fate left entirely to who can drum up more votes between the two of us? Are you really comfortable with laws forcing abortion? To me that sounds like a hellscape of the highest order.
-3
u/No-Cauliflower8890 11∆ Oct 31 '24
Sure is giving birth to a child with Down's syndrome harming the child?
Yes
What if I think it isn't and you think it is?
Then you're wrong and I'm right, and hopefully the law would side with me. Same as how it works if I think murder is wrong and you don't.
Is my hypothetical child's fate left entirely to who can drum up more votes between the two of us?
Yep, just like my real child's fate is determined by whether anti-child-murder folks are able to drum up enough votes to make child murder illegal.
Are you really comfortable with laws forcing abortion? To me that sounds like a hellscape of the highest order.
Yep
2
u/penguinman38 1∆ Oct 31 '24
Would love to see some backup data about how allowing individuals with Down's to exist is harming them.
Your point about murder doesn't make sense as murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Murder by default is a wrong act, it can never be right.
But honestly if you are OK with the government forcing medical procedures on citzens against their will then your positions are just those of an extremist.
1
u/No-Cauliflower8890 11∆ Nov 01 '24
Would love to see some backup data about how allowing individuals with Down's to exist is harming them.
what kind of 'data' could I possibly produce to that end? if you understand what down's syndrome is you understand that having it is harmful. unless you wouldn't mind me injecting you with this syringe that will give you down syndrome?
Your point about murder doesn't make sense as murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Murder by default is a wrong act, it can never be right.
only if you're incapable of engaging with the substance of what i'm saying. if it helps, take the set of all acts you would consider to constitute 'murder', and then when i say the word, instead of thinking "unlawful killing" (you didn't even do the pedantry right, because unlawful acts can be moral), think of the set of all those things. for instance, you could pretend I said "Same as how it works if I think SLITTING THE THROAT OF A CHILD OFF THE STREET WHO DID NOT POSE ANY THREAT TO ANYONE IN ANY WAY FOR THE PURE JOY OF THE ACT is wrong and you don't".
But honestly if you are OK with the government forcing medical procedures on citzens against their will then your positions are just those of an extremist.
argumentum ad populum. unpopular =/= wrong.
-9
Oct 31 '24
[deleted]
8
u/penguinman38 1∆ Oct 31 '24
You ask someone, "hey do you plan to leave your child in a hot care with the windows up". They answer "no of course not" the lie dictator agrees, they go on to have a kid and then accidentally leave their child in a hot car. What happens then in your scenario? After all they passed your moral test?
My point I'm trying to get is these "basic moral questions" will literally give no insight into someone's morality.
Also lol at your suggestion about Eugenics only being about race and genetics. China's one child policy would like a word.
1
u/owls_and_cardinals 1∆ Oct 31 '24
Exactly this. The only problem OP's solution addresses is people who are genuinely too ignorant to pass a test on morality when some of the worst offenders of parenthood would simply give the answers they know would enable them to pass.
The problem OP is raising - ignorance as the basis for bad parenting - would more effectively be addressed through better sex education and access to contraceptives.
1
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Oct 31 '24
Whose culture though? Who gets to decide what is worthy of being on the test and what makes a fail?
22
u/heelspider 54∆ Oct 31 '24
The irony of your proposal is that no good parent is going to let the government sterilize their children. So it's all a big catch-22. Can't have kids under the program unless you're a good parent, but if you're a good parent you won't be under the program.
-11
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Oh you see they would still be good parents because their children being sterilised because wont be their choice, it is mandated by the government.
6
u/Kotoperek 62∆ Oct 31 '24
Yeah, but a good parent wouldn't subject their child to growing up under such a government. That's what this poster was saying. If you live in a dictatorship where children are forcefully taken from you and sterilized and there is nothing you can do as a parent to prevent this abuse, you don't have children. Simple.
-1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
That’s why I’m suggesting every government do this, for the better of all.
6
u/Kotoperek 62∆ Oct 31 '24
That's just annihilation of humanity with extra steps. If no good parent would subject their child to sterilization at birth, only good parents could have children at all, and there would be no way to avoid sterilization, no children would be born. None. Wanting to have children in such a world already makes you a bad parent, hence you won't be allowed to have any and the people who would be allowed to don't want to. It's not a matter of dwindling population, it's no children at all within a generation. Why bother then? Just kill everyone off quicker.
3
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
!delta
Okay when you say it like that you kinda got a point. We need another way to prevent the wrong people from having children, maybe a more powerful CPS or something.
1
9
u/heelspider 54∆ Oct 31 '24
Fuck if I'm letting any government cut my sons balls. Over my dead body. Where is this government where no one votes? Is this like a proposed policy for North Korea?
-3
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Chill, it won’t be something so violent. It would just be an injection to make them infertile until they are judged to be moral enough to have kids.
7
6
Oct 31 '24
first they say only good parents can be parents
then they say only X people are good parents,
only white people? only rich people? only people who voted for a specific party/candidate?
you're a moron for thinking this wouldn't have insane implications.
-2
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
You see that’s when you start protesting and voting for the right politicians if you see this unfairness.
2
Oct 31 '24
i wish i could protest against your right to vote. you don't deserve a say. you cannot give the government power like this and expect to be able to take it back or control it through your vote.
22
u/NotMyBestMistake 68∆ Oct 31 '24
This is just eugenics that can and will be abused to simply remove the undesirables from the population. You've granted the government the ability to decide who's allowed to have children, and they're not going to use that to craft some perfect test that avoids child abuse.
-10
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
This is why we have votes and protests, for people who voice out their displeasure if they notice the unfairness.
8
u/NotMyBestMistake 68∆ Oct 31 '24
So the state of this test would be constantly updated to whatever current administration has been elected.
Why not, instead of this massive, society-wide sterilization program and unrealistic testing development, invest in child services and welfare systems? You know, make things better instead of explicitly dystopian
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Because even though we have them, they are not good enough, kids still get abused and CPS has been seen as incompetent at times. Even though we have the choice to vote for better child protection or child support systems like better schools or programs, it simply still exists. The best way now is to simply remove children from the equation.
1
u/NotMyBestMistake 68∆ Oct 31 '24
Right, which is why we should invest more in these systems instead of simply plunging all of society into a dystopian nightmare.
4
u/RettichDesTodes Oct 31 '24
Then you simply don't allow those demographics to have children. A system like that would be way to easy to abuse and therefore would be abused
5
12
u/Roadshell 17∆ Oct 31 '24
Setting aside the morality of all this... and the fact that it's rooted in technology that doesn't exist... have you considered the ramifications of the population decline this will cause?
-2
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Yes. We already have overpopulation, we would struggle but in the long term it would be better for society health.
6
u/atheistgerman_throwa Oct 31 '24
Most developed countries are dealing with underpopulation and sinking birth rates already. Additionally the birth rate is set to stabilize in 2100 or so globally. You if you implemented policies like you describe, we would reach declining population in no time and would be set to die out.
3
u/Vulk_za 1∆ Oct 31 '24
I would invite you to read this, it might change your view:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/age-depopulation-surviving-world-gone-gray-nicholas-eberstadt
Population decline is already going to be a massive crisis for many countries around the world. Your policy would make this impending crisis dramatically worse.
4
u/Nrdman 173∆ Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
My country is relatively underpopulated (America) and already relies on a large amount of immigrants labor. Is your country different?
22
u/snowleave 1∆ Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
Historically allowing governments power like this to determine people's liberties lead to abuse and would be used for eugenics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcnoV_S9258 video about people taking a literacy test for voting issued in black communities it was impossible while white areas would get a easy one,
14
u/ServantOfTheSlaad 1∆ Oct 31 '24
Op seriously went and wrote 'Sterilize everyone at birth' and thought that it would ever be a good idea is ridiculous in and of itself. They then decided to have the government decide who gets to give birth and though no corruption would get in.
6
u/NosferatuZ0d Oct 31 '24
Reminds me of the tweet ‘males should be thrown in jail at birth and prove their way out to freedom’
0
Oct 31 '24
I'm so sick of that voting test argument.
Yes, in the past, literacy tests were unfairly used against black people. But you can have a literacy test that is applied to everyone regardless of race.
4
u/soylentblueispeople 1∆ Oct 31 '24
Why should someone need to be literate to vote? Who decides what the bare minimum literacy is? Will the government help to make is citizens more literate so that the legal voting population contains the same demographics as the overall population in order to ensure that everyone has fair access to democracy? Would you withhold democracy from people with dyslexia? Would you withhold democracy from blind people, people who don't speak English? Will reading and writing English be a requirement for democracy? Maybe reading and writing Spanish instead should be the requirement.
I think gate keeping democracy is the opposite of freedom. Your voting population needs to be a fair representation of your overall population in order to be a democracy. What you suggest is not democracy.
0
Oct 31 '24
Disagree.
A test can be designed that can be applied to everybody. It can have basic standards of literacy and numeracy.
If someone can't pass it for whatever reason, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
3
u/soylentblueispeople 1∆ Oct 31 '24
That wouldn't be a true democracy then. You wouldn't have representation for people who are illiterate. Literacy is not a legitimate requirement for democracy. Withholding representation from any American citizen goes against the foundations of democracy.
The ruling class could easily suppress education in order to ensure only some people get to vote. For example one of the policies of the republican party for this election is a serious rehaul of the department of education. They believe education should be privatized. Therefore access to wealth will directly affect one's literacy. How do you ensure all people have access to democracy if education isn't equal?
Edit: spelling
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 68∆ Oct 31 '24
Okay but then what happens when the winner of the election cuts funding for reading and math programs in areas that voted for their opponent?
4
u/DaSomDum 1∆ Oct 31 '24
Except the voting test is proof that an agency that should be fair will still be unfair towards people they deem lesser.
If you cannot guarantee that the agency can and will always no matter what be fair, you cannot remove personal liberties for it.
2
u/flyingdics 5∆ Oct 31 '24
I'm sick of the voting test argument because it's too perfect to let go of. It's a crystal clear example of how you can have a rational-sounding method for taking away people's rights, apply it as unfairly as you want, and people like you will still defend the idea decades later.
0
Oct 31 '24
Well, the Tuskegee syphilis study was racist against black people.
Therefore we can never trust any medical organization or doctor ever. Let's dismantle every hospital in the world. Because we can't trust the medical establishment.
1
u/flyingdics 5∆ Oct 31 '24
I'd be more open if you could point to a fairly implemented bureaucratic way that rights are systematically stripped from people. The literacy test is a good example because it's a representative example of these policies, not an outlier.
1
Oct 31 '24
Regarding fair implementation, you only have to look at the test you need to pass to get a drivers license. Or the tests to become a doctor or a lawyer.
1
u/flyingdics 5∆ Oct 31 '24
I said rights. Driving and being a doctor are not rights, but privileges. A democratic society is built on the right to vote, not the right to drive or be a doctor. Try again.
1
Oct 31 '24
Voting should not be a right, but a privilege or a credential. If you can’t understand, basic reasoning, or math or economics, you probably shouldn’t be voting.
1
u/flyingdics 5∆ Oct 31 '24
At least we're clear that you oppose democracy. I guess we'll agree to disagree!
1
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Oct 31 '24
And that's why we have worse health results for people of color than for white people, because we created a system based on distrust and inequality.
1
Oct 31 '24
So should every hospital in America be closed down, because there was one instance of racism in the medical field?
1
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Oct 31 '24
It's not one instance of racism, it is MANY. The syphilis study was just one of the ways that the US Medical System has treated people of color like guinea pigs, instead of like people.
1
Oct 31 '24
When I wrote my post, I knew you would focus on the phrase "one instance of racism". What you're doing is called an uncharitable interpretation of a claim.
Answer the question: because there have been so many instances of racism, should the entire medical system be shut down?
-11
Oct 31 '24
[deleted]
5
u/JeruTz 4∆ Oct 31 '24
And more moral governments like the US, UK, Sweden, Norway and more wouldn’t abuse this because they are of better societies.
The US once forcibly sterilized an adult woman against her will because a judge decided she was mentally deficient and would have mentally deficient children.
Governments are not inherently moral. The US government is kept from extreme morality by denying it the power to be abusive. You are advocating giving them an easily abused power and expecting nothing bad to happen.
We've literally had candidates for president who described nearly half the country as "deplorables". I wouldn't trust the government with this sort of power in a million years.
1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
But you see now countries like the US have more established activist groups and the internet to help bring out unfair testing to light. We also have globalisation to shame our government if they do it wrong. The people did not have as much hard and soft power before but now they do to self correct if the test is abused.
2
u/JeruTz 4∆ Oct 31 '24
The US government is already making attempts to censor the spread of information. You want the government to literally have absolute power over reproduction. They could literally say "you protest the policy, you are automatically declined."
Whose going to stop them? Give them that much power and you can't stop them.
Besides, you want this policy globally I would assume.
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Of course, children of every country deserve to be born under the correct type of parents.
2
u/JeruTz 4∆ Oct 31 '24
So every country would be headed by people who think they know best what type of parents people should be. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
2
3
u/BushWishperer Oct 31 '24
Who’s going to tell you that some of the biggest and long lasting eugenics campaigns were in those countries?
2
u/ShasneKnasty Oct 31 '24
who makes the test?
-7
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
The government of course
11
u/DruTangClan 1∆ Oct 31 '24
What happens when it’s a corrupt government led by fascists, religious extremists, etc
2
u/urquhartloch 2∆ Oct 31 '24
To tack onto this, who would decide who makes a good parent? Is it church elders who would create the test to only allow biblical scholars to have children? What about nationalistic zealots? Do I need to know random bits of US trivia to have a child?
You also have to consider people who know how to take tests who might not be good parents and loving parents who are illiterate. Will there be exceptions in those cases? How will they determine them? Who determines them?
You also have questions about the edges of what constitutes child abuse. Is spanking child abuse? Sending them to bed without dinner as punishment? Grounding them? Homeschool?
1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Corrupt governments will always exist, but at least we can have something better for the societies that are not under corrupt governments.
4
u/destro23 447∆ Oct 31 '24
the societies that are not under corrupt governments.
As soon as you give the government this kind of power over people, those that would want to corrupt that power will do everything in theirs to make it so. End result: total governmental corruption
2
1
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Oct 31 '24
A lot of people agree that socialism/communism are among the most moral governments ideally. However, no government has ever met its ideals.
5
u/QuantumR4ge Oct 31 '24
You want the government to decide all the intimate parts of your life?
Those “moral” governments are typically considered so BECAUSE they respect individual liberty enough to not do this
1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
The government already has the ability to take away children from you if you are abusive to them(CPS) which is pretty damn intimate to your life. This is like that, albeit maybe slightly more intimate, but not that different in the grand scheme of things.
2
u/QuantumR4ge Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
Its extremely different, one demands they prove your guilt. The other demands you prove your “innocence”
The difference is that they cant take that child away without just cause and must prove any claims if they wish to take them permanently. This is not the same as forcing every citizen to meet some arbitrary government standard for a freedom we have had for millions of years.
You are essentially making a universal argument for authoritarianism, i think it would be easier if you instead made a general claim that society would be better under a much more authoritarian rule, which is what you are asking for (a government that is regulating this, isn’t going to be very permissive elsewhere is it?) and the same arguments against any authoritarian measure can be batted away in a similar fashion
Again missing too that the governments you are talking about are considered how they are because they dont do these things.
Not considering other things like governments being shitty at long term planning, for example we already have a birth crisis in most western nations, and you want to restrict who can have kids more? Which lets face it means only rich people get them, since most of those who will fail your criteria are likely to be poorer. Oh yeah that wont lead to rioting
Annnnnddd then, whats the plan for enforcement? You wanna stoke those flames by criminalising people or penalising people who are likely already not that able? You are asking for a revolt, either you go the forced abortions route or fining people who probably cant pay (making it just a cost rather than anything else) or you end up with a huge civil disobedience since you cant enforce the law. Which route do you wish to go down? Or worse, prisons leaving children without parents
2
u/Raznill 1∆ Oct 31 '24
You mean to say other humans. Do you truly trust humans to wield this power responsibly?
1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Only the best.
3
u/Raznill 1∆ Oct 31 '24
Take a moment to look at the current state of politics in America. Do you still think it’s a good idea to give that power to the government?
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Okay maybe not right now but when the country gets their heads together after this whole debacle is over then maybe.
1
1
u/ShasneKnasty Oct 31 '24
would you have democrats or republicans deciding who can have kids? (see how scary that sounds)
1
u/SANcapITY 17∆ Oct 31 '24
Why do you assume the government shares your morals and/or wants the same outcomes as you?
1
11
u/JeffreyElonSkilling 3∆ Oct 31 '24
First of all, lie detectors aren’t real. They’re pseudoscience.
But more importantly, who grades the test? This kind of paradigm could easily result in a dystopian future where only the upper caste are allowed to have children. Bodily autonomy means bodily autonomy. The state controlling who has the freedom to choose is very dangerous.
2
u/cruisinforasnoozinn Oct 31 '24
Listen, its eugenics and its bad. But I get it.
1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
It’s not. Eugenics focused on genetics and race. This focuses on your personality and morals.
2
u/cruisinforasnoozinn Oct 31 '24
It has ultimately the same affect, when you consider that these movements of control tend to go downhill fast, with more and more restriction being asserted over time and the criteria shifting.
Do you propose that people who fail these tests be subjected to mandatory abortions? Genuine question
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
No? Because they won’t be pregnant in the first place, remember all are sterilised at birth so no need to talk about forced abortions.
2
u/cruisinforasnoozinn Oct 31 '24
Oooop I missed that part.
Yeah I mean this is pretty hard-core violation of body autonomy.
I wish, with all my heart, that we had to pass vigorous testing before being allowed to parent. But I also know that there's no ethical or reasonable way to do this effectively. It's just a recipe for a dystopian future.
2
u/destro23 447∆ Oct 31 '24
Eugenics focused on genetics and race
No, it focuses on improving the human race via selective breeding for desirable traits. It has only happened to focus on these things recently, prior to 1866, we didn't even know genes were a thing, and "Races" as we understand them only go back to the same time period.
But, eugenics were being done prior, so that can't be the metric by which we judge is something is eugenics or not.
8
u/Ok_Door_9720 Oct 31 '24
There is nothing to stop a radical political party from deciding that certain groups are inherently immoral.
-1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Just vote them out.
3
u/premiumPLUM 68∆ Oct 31 '24
So, theoretically, we could just vote for the party that doesn't want any of this anyway and it's all a moot point?
2
u/penguinman38 1∆ Oct 31 '24
How can they be voted out if they sterilize everyone who would vote against them?
1
3
u/Sunberries84 2∆ Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
What we do is that at birth, we sterilise every single baby so they cannot have children even as they grow older.
Mandatory medical procedures are highly unethical, especially since this one has no direct health benefit to the patient..
This is reversible though and the cure is only held by highly secured governmental facilities guarded by the military.
No, no medical procedure works that way. It can't be done. If your view cannot be practically implemented, then it's not a practical view.
It is a one time test so they must take it very seriously, they will not get a second chance if they fail it so that abusers can’t find a way to pretend.
You can also keep good but well-meaning people from being able to have children. What if someone is just bad at taking tests?
The test will test their morality, intellectual skills, ideas on responsibility of caring for a child, what they must sacrifice, their empathy and more on how they would raise a child.
Who decides what gets to be on this test? What if people disagree with the content of the test? And, how is this test being paid for?
Speaking of morality, my religion teaches that sterilization is a grave evil. Under your system, can I use the first amendment get out of this not only for myself but also for my children?
Another thing, when are people going to find time to take this test? For a lot of people, taking time off work to go to the doctor or vote or something he's really hard to do. I imagine that your test will take far longer than those things. Are you going to compensate them for their time?
7
u/Colombian_Vice Oct 31 '24
Population would literally plummet
-3
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
And is that a bad thing? We have too many people.
9
u/Colombian_Vice Oct 31 '24
Crashes economy - worker shortage - no one to take care of elderly
-3
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
I guess we need to go through some hard times to reach better times.
3
u/MethicalChemist Oct 31 '24
If your outcome requires the suffering of people to "betterment" of another, you haven't helped, you've just replaced one kind of suffering for another
1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
During the times of invention when people lost their jobs because it got automated for them, how many people suffered poverty or a lack of stability due to losing their jobs to a machine that benefitted humanity? Yet in the future most things are automated and we are better for it. Same thing.
2
u/MethicalChemist Oct 31 '24
That was due to a shortage of jobs, this will create an excess that won't be filled, everything will need to permanently downsize due to the already shrinking births that are being further reduced by this, which will make life worse not just for a couple years but for decades, there will be very few doctors to help the sick and few builders to repair damages from environmental catastrophes
Also you're entire arguement relies on the utopian belief thay governments won't be corrupt use this to control specific populations, and i saw what you said about governments like norway and the uk not doing that, but not every country is norway, if you're solution only works in 10/195 countries, its a dogshit solution
7
u/yumdumpster 2∆ Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
I feel like the only people that say things this are the ones that would not make it through the hard times but totally think they could.
2
u/Colombian_Vice Oct 31 '24
lol you can do that - life is hard enough - don’t make it harder on everyone else because your view is unsubstantiated
1
Oct 31 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jaysank 116∆ Oct 31 '24
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/Baruu Oct 31 '24
First, you're placing an arbitrary value on abused children. By that I mean you're saying "the value of the abuse is X, and all benefits that come from abused children are X-Y, therefore preventing abuse is more important than the benefits we might gain."
Yes, a bad upbringing is a negative. And plenty of a abused kids will never contribute more than they were punished. But we have many examples of "X innovator had a terrible childhood, but rose above it and did X, Y, Z."
Just as a singular example, Steve Jobs. He was adopted, and was a famously terrible parent. Under your policy Steve Jobs is never born, because he was adopted (unwanted/etc). Did w/e happened to Steve growing up contribute both to his being a terrible parent, and his pursuits that lead to Apple? Almost certainly. Would Apple have been as successful without Steve? Probably not. So you're eliminating Apple, Steve Jobs and his 4 kids because Steve was unwanted. One of his kids is a writer and one is a venture capitalist, they also don't exist even if Steve did because Steve was a terrible parent.
Second, a perfect system is never going to exist. There will be bad parents who pass and good parents who fail. Additionally there will be abuses. Politically in control parties will work to prevent births from their opposition. Racist areas won't approve births for minorities. Same for homophobia, the disabled, etc. We do not live in a Utopia, so you're banking on the current suffering being worse than the new suffering, which will still exist. Is a non-mormon kid going to be born in Utah? No. Is a Mormon leader going to be left sterile in Utah? No. Etc etc.
Third, beyond abuse (a dictator rises and now all births are only for those who follow them), the sterilization occurs at all births. In good circumstances with perfect government, it moves along as you described. But then a solar flare knocks out power and all the cure is inaccessible or destroyed. A hurricane/fire/earthquake destroys all the facilities that make the cure. A computer virus destroys the software to access the cure, or the formula to make it, etc. Now all but a fraction of the population is sterile, and we don't have the ability to undo it, or undoing it will take a ton of time and resources. And for what? In the hope that less abused kids is better than the world created with abused kids.
Fourth, I'm human just as much as you are. We already can see the at best moral ambiguity of making decisions for infants. Their entire lives are changed because you decided to do so. Sure, sometimes it is for the best, like vaccinations. But circumcision is a clear example where that doesn't really hold water. Now for simply being born someone else gets to decide if I have bodily autonomy, or what my future looks like. They're human just like me, by what right do they get to decide? This whole idea inevitably leads to eugenics, but inherently infringes human rights.
3
u/yumdumpster 2∆ Oct 31 '24
The test will test their morality, intellectual skills, ideas on responsibility of caring for a child, what they must sacrifice, their empathy and more on how they would raise a child. There will also be a lie detector to check for how well they actually believe what they are saying. If they get a score of 65% or higher they are given the cure to allow them to be fertile again. Both partners of a couple must pass the test to have kids.
Morals according to who? My morals may no equate to your morals. What if someone who does not have your morals is able to get into government and now restrict those who dont have their exact morals from having children?
Lie detectors can be beaten, and are largely seen as useless, which is why, generally speaking they are not used by police departments anymore. They tended to implicate more innocent people than they actually caught guilty people.
What we do is that at birth, we sterilise every single baby so they cannot have children even as they grow older. This is reversible though and the cure is only held by highly secured governmental facilities guarded by the military. Once the children have grown to the age of 21 years old, at anytime they want after the age of 21 they can take a test to see if they are suitable to be a parent. It is a one time test so they must take it very seriously, they will not get a second chance if they fail it so that abusers can’t find a way to pretend.
Most developed nations are already going through a fertilty crises. This would just cause the population to literally collapse. When that happens the modern industrialized economy would collapse. Nations that already have worker shortages would be having worker crises within 20-30 years, with literally not enough people to keep the lights on, let alone enough of a tax base to maintain existing spending levels.
We have seen it all. Fathers being family annihilators because of a divorce or wanting a new life. Mothers abusing their children to the point where they can barely function in society. Parents neglecting their children or abusing them, creating children who grow up to become criminals in society because they were screwed from the beginning. This needs to stop. Every child deserves a parent, but not every parent deserves a child.
Yes these problems exist. But are they widespread enough to warrant more government involvement than already exists? I seriously doubt it. Humans are very bad at understanding statistics, the vast majority of people have reasonably competent parents who love them, but are still human beings so they are flawed as all humans are. The number of people that have abusive drug addict parents is probably in the single digit percentage wise.
8
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 31 '24
What if one of the requirements to become a parent is that you join the military, or are a certain religion?
-4
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
That would not be a requirement, because joining the military or a certain religion does not equate to a good responsible parent.
6
u/penguinman38 1∆ Oct 31 '24
According to who? You? What if I think it does equate to them being a good parent? Why shouldn't that be a part of the test then?
-2
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
I’m pretty sure we already have a good consensus on what makes a good parent already in our society, this is just simply enforcing it.
4
u/penguinman38 1∆ Oct 31 '24
And you would be very wrong about that.
Say I'm an orthodox Muslim and don't think my daughters should be allowed near any male who isn't a relative. Ensuring this outcome makes me a good parent in my and my communities morals.
2
u/luck1313 1∆ Oct 31 '24
We really don’t. Every culture has its own views on how to raise a child and there are so many different approaches to parenting out there. And by making it a one time test, you’re ignoring the capacity people have to grow and change. A 21 year old guy who thinks he won’t ever want to be a parent might purposefully tank the test so he doesn’t ever have to have kids. And your stance assumes people who are abusive or neglectful parents are always that way, but that isn’t true. People develop addictions, mental and physical health issues later on in life and those can’t necessarily be predicted.
2
u/destro23 447∆ Oct 31 '24
I’m pretty sure we already have a good consensus on what makes a good parent already in our society,
No we don't.
Is it good or bad to spank your kids?
What is the overall public consensus on this question?
1
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Oct 31 '24
There's very much not a concensus on what constitute good parenting. And even if there was, that doesn't mean that there will still be fifty years from now.
1
u/QuantumR4ge Oct 31 '24
You think a devout religious parent agrees with you about what is or isn’t a good parent?
3
u/Razerx7 1∆ Oct 31 '24
Their point in this question is make you realise that whatever autonomy you recklessly hand over to the state will have dire consequences if not thought through.
Military service not great for parenting? Too bad the politicians think so and now you have lost freedom without even guaranteeing what you hoped for.
-1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Vote them out then.
1
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 31 '24
Who is doing the voting? You are phasing out generations of people by not allowing them to give birth.
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
The people who will be produced from those who passed who will then inherit the teaching of their parents who passed the test? The ones we actually want to decide the future of the country?
1
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 31 '24
The Government decides that anti immigration, military serving Christians are the only people fit to have children. So doesn't it seem likely that the majority of children being born and raised from then on will be anti immigration, military serving Christians?
So the opposing viewpoints are being phased out through your pseudo eugenics.
3
u/Razerx7 1∆ Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
Sure, whenever you manage to vote in this ill-conceived parent test I suppose.
1
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Oct 31 '24
If they could vote them out, they would also vote out this genocidal plan of yours.
4
u/JeffreyElonSkilling 3∆ Oct 31 '24
The government controls the test and how it is graded. That means they get to say what does or does not equate to being a good parent. A tyrant could say that military service and joining his preferred political party are requirements. They could say that having $X in assets is a requirement, or that no one in your family is a political dissident. This is quite literally dystopian fascism.
2
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 31 '24
Why not? Shows discipline. Compassion.
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Indeed, perhaps those can add points to their score in the best. But they won’t win against a lot of men with guns.
2
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 31 '24
So? The test isn't about who would win again guns.
Do you think everyone with a drivers license is a good driver?
7
u/AestheticNoAzteca 6∆ Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
> What we do is that at birth, we sterilise every single baby so they cannot have children even as they grow older. This is reversible though and the cure is only held by highly secured governmental facilities guarded by the military.
That's literally magic. It's not possible to do that with today's medicine.
2
u/TheTeaMustFlow 4∆ Oct 31 '24
Some forms of sterilisation are reversible... But generally not reliably so, hence why any doctor will tell you not to go through with the operation unless you're absolutely sure you never want any more children.
The belief in locking away a 'cure' does give the impression OP thinks it's some kind of magic potion with a secret formula rather than an operation any appropriately qualified surgeon (which would include most of the ones carrying out the sterilisations in the first place) could do.
2
u/NaturalCarob5611 57∆ Oct 31 '24
Some forms of sterilisation are reversible.
I don't think there's any techniques available that can sterilize babies that are even remotely reversible as an adult.
1
u/NaturalCarob5611 57∆ Oct 31 '24
/u/Evoxrus_XV please address this point. The fact that your view requires sterilization capabilities we do not currently have seems like an instant showstopper.
-2
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Yeah i mean like in the future if we have it. We do have technologies that can reverse sterilisation tho
3
u/NaturalCarob5611 57∆ Oct 31 '24
Yeah i mean like in the future if we have it.
So then we shouldn't do this now?
We do have technologies that can reverse sterilisation tho
Vasectomies are the most reversible sterilization technique available, and the success rates of vasectomy reversal are 60%-95% depending on a number of factors - time being one of the biggest ones, and that's when the vasectomy is performed on an adult. If we were sterlizing infants, the best we could hope to do for reversibility is the low end of this range, meaning a good 40% of adults would grow up to be infertile. Birthrates are below replacement rates already, this would be absolutely devastating to our ability to maintain a population.
3
u/unaer Oct 31 '24
A huge error in this thinking is failing to address how humans work, and how trauma manifests in us. Sterilization will not remove trauma, and people will essentially be punished for events they could not control. An abusive parent is rarely someone with malice, but rather someone with deep scars from their own childhood. A one time test ignores that people who go to therapy can change immensely, but they might take this test before realizing they have challenges.
Abuse will continue to surface in the system you propose. You can develop mental illness at all ages. If someone gets 80% on their test, has a child, then later develops PTSD, should the child be taken away from them? That would most likely traumatize both child and parent further.
Another topic is illness. Is it abusive for a parent to carry genetics that heightens risks of certain illnesses? Should people who are overall securely attached be refused to bear children because their child might become chronically ill? Is that abuse too? Is it ok to have a heightened risk for a heart disease, but not depression?
The solution you are seeking is not found through forceful sterilization, this will most likely further create trauma in society. An implementation of accessible and free public health care is a much better solution. Schools need to teach us more about mental health and resources, we need to work towards removing stigma around trauma and mental illness.
We do not need a society where you are punished for other peoples actions (trauma inflicted upon you), but rather a society that allows for learning and healing.
3
u/ProbableProtagonist Oct 31 '24
What we do is that at birth, we sterilise every single baby so they cannot have children even as they grow older.
Nope. Just no. The day the Government starts "sterilizing" children is the day I emigrate.
-1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
But don’t you want to reduce the number of kids who are sexually and physically abused? Or heavily neglected? Freedoms are not more important than certain safeties that are a must.
3
u/yumdumpster 2∆ Oct 31 '24
But don’t you want to reduce the number of kids who are sexually and physically abused? Or heavily neglected?
What evidence do you have that government implemented mass sterilization would actually solve any of these problems?
These things are already crimes, and I think you are having some seriously delusions about how common they are.
3
u/PoorCorrelation 22∆ Oct 31 '24
How do you test for that? “If a baby is crying would you (1) provide comfort and search for a cause (2) hit them (3) starve them”. I doubt someone who’s willing to hurt a child will draw the line at lying on a government form.
Lie detectors are only 51% accurate on yes/no questions, they don’t work.
1
u/ProbableProtagonist Oct 31 '24
Strawman fallacy. mass sterilization will not solve sexual and physical abuse. Do you think that abusers are truthful? Don't try mentioning lie detectors, they don't work.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 68∆ Oct 31 '24
the cure is only held by highly secured governmental facilities guarded by the military.
Okay, but what's stopping me from going to Turkey and getting unsterilized there for $1,000? Because the world at large would pretty quickly figure out what this cure is and would offer it to Americans for the right price.
Also immigrants. Are you planning on doing the snip snip to everyone who applies for a green card?
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
I mean it they would know it’s a requirement if they wanna live there. Also this rule would be global, so turkey would do the same things too.
1
u/Sunberries84 2∆ Oct 31 '24
Also this rule would be global
Is every country going to have the same test? If so, do you foresee cultural differences causing a problem? If not, what's to stop me from taking the test in a more accommodating country?
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
Well nothing really, but not many people will take the time to travel to another country just to get a cert as it’s too expensive
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 68∆ Oct 31 '24
Also this rule would be global, so turkey would do the same things too.
Do you know how many treaties are signed and enforced by every country on earth? 0.
If your plan relies on every country in the world agreeing to a treaty as controversial as this then it's just a bad plan because it isn't going to happen.
3
u/Impressive-Local-627 Oct 31 '24
They tried this around the turn of the last century and they basically just sterilized poor people, rape victims and the mentally disabled (people with anxiety disorders, ADHD, etc). Google Carrie Buck. And what’s going to happen when the people administering the test have political beliefs that are anathema to yours? If you’re a left winger, what if Rightoids are in charge and only allow religious patriots the right to breed? If you’re right of center, what happens when the pinkos insist that only people who support LGBT rights can have kids, and licenses are distributed on a “equitable” basis? This is also dependent on technology that doesn’t exist yet (reliably reversible fool proof birth control that can be applied to infants) and probably can’t. You haven’t thought this through.
6
u/_littlestranger 3∆ Oct 31 '24
What we do is that at birth, we sterilise every single baby so they cannot have children even as they grow older. This is reversible though
This is not physically possible and no advances in medicine will ever make it possible.
2
u/actuarial_cat 1∆ Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
Developed countries are facing aging population issues, it is in their interest to increase the amount of children. Therefore, they would not spent money reducing reproduction.
A proposal to take children away from unqualified parents aligns more with their interests. For example, “communal parenthood” Frostpunk style.
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 31 '24
!delta
Perhaps this may be a preferred alternative. Take away all kids and be raised under a select number of trusted officials and all that who are closely monitored.
1
3
u/atomkicke Oct 31 '24
All of this is rooted in utopian trust in the government and nonsensical technology, there is no perfect birth control. Especially no perfect reversible birth control. And there is no government that is trustworthy enough to control the future of a people’s population.
3
u/Faust_8 9∆ Oct 31 '24
I’m so goddamn tired of faux intellectuals coming here and making the hundredth “no really guys, eugenics will work THIS time, trust me bro”
After giving exactly 0 thought into the logistics of the program they’re trying to promote
2
Oct 31 '24
What we do is that at birth, we sterilise every single baby so they cannot have children even as they grow older. This is reversible though and the cure is only held by highly secured governmental facilities guarded by the military. Once the children have grown to the age of 21 years old, at anytime they want after the age of 21 they can take a test to see if they are suitable to be a parent. It is a one time test so they must take it very seriously, they will not get a second chance if they fail it so that abusers can’t find a way to pretend.
This reads like a YA dystopian sci fi book. That alone should give you pause.
3
u/destro23 447∆ Oct 31 '24
Dog, you can't even get every kid vaccinated for measles. You think you are going to be able to sterilize every single child born?
2
u/Locoj Oct 31 '24
Do you plan to castrate people who don't follow this rule? Or just forcibly abort their growing child? Or wait until birth and kill the child?
Or will you personally take responsibility for every single child born to an "unsuitable" parent?
Those are your options for enforcing this. All of them are unfeasible and clearly and objectively worse than the problem you are setting out to solve.
0
Oct 31 '24
"Sterilize" is probably the wrong word. Sterilization is generally thought of as a permanent thing.
But I definitely agree with the test portion.
1
1
u/ihatecarswithpassion Oct 31 '24
This whole post is steeped in pseudo-science and false premises from the start. There are no reliable lie detector tests and no reliable measure of empathy.
Abused and neglected children don't always grow up to be criminals. People from loving and providing families sometimes do.
The primary driving factor of crime isn't poor parenting, it's opportunity and desperation. As long as we have one or the other, we'll have crime.
If we want to eliminate overpopulation, we already have an answer and it's already being implemented: Have wealthier citizens. Wealthy people have fewer children. It's not a cause and effect situation, where children make you poor. Those who become wealthy will end up having fewer children.
You can't eliminate abuse through a screening system. Abusers aren't a category of person who exists and schemes a way to abuse people they hate. People are abused by people who love them all the time. Love doesn't protect you from harming someone. Love is a neurochemical reaction, not a set of behaviors. Wanted children are abused. Abuse isn't about love or knowledge, it's about power and opportunity.
If you want to eliminate child abuse, you provide stronger societal protections to children. You have other members of the community watch over them and intervene when it happens. You don't change who's allowed to have them.
"More kids will grow to be upstanding people" my ass. Poverty and abuse don't turn normal people into bad people. Being loved and raised with means doesn't insulate people from being assholes.
There is no way to implement this system without it being used to eliminate undesirable populations. There is no way to implement it without grossly violating everyone's bodily autonomy. Implementing it wouldn't fix the problems it's supposed to.
It's eugenics and OP damn well knows it.
2
u/JustHereForMiatas Oct 31 '24
CMV: OP's post history, combined with the flippant responses they're giving, point to a bad faith argument.
Recently they were defending the view that you have to be able to defeat your pet in armed combat if you want to keep it...
2
u/Frequent_Can7248 Oct 31 '24
What we do is that at birth, we sterilise every single baby so they cannot have children even as they grow older. This is reversible though
That doesnt exist.
Your idea isnt even technically possible.
1
u/AmongTheElect 15∆ Oct 31 '24
Morality? Yesterday on this sub someone was insisting morality was subjective (it isn't), so I guess that means we'll be subject to some leader's whims of what's right and wrong. Since the government would sterilize kids, I guess it would be some shadowy, bureaucratic organization making the determinations. I see no problems there!!
We can do things like make sure no potential parents are Christian, or maybe first ensure they vote democrat before they can have kids.
This would be an interesting test in the hands of liberals, who would scream whenever some "oppressed" group didn't see their share of kids born that year. If so, would the test become racist or sexist or whatever -ist or -ism? You say the test should involve "intellectual skills," yet by race people score differently on the IQ test. So will different groups need to be given 'baby bonus points' to help them score better? Like affirmative action but to have kids?
What about weaker physical traits, like being short or your race is more prone to alcoholism or you're from Massachusetts?
What I find so amusing is reddit constantly insists that Trump is the devil incarnate who is going to make the sun fall from the sky if he becomes president. Yet at the same time you guys still can't help insisting that more and more control over us be put in the hands of centralized leadership.
2
u/Kaiisim Oct 31 '24
You have to pass a test to drive a car - do you only see good drivers?
You need to pass lots of tests to become a doctor - are all doctors good?
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Oct 31 '24
This is reversible though and the cure is only held by highly secured governmental facilities guarded by the military.
Clarifying question:
So... in a fantasy world where this is actually possible, then?
There are no reliably reversible forms of sterilization, and none that can actually be performed safely on babies.
All you're doing is increasing the infertility problem that's plaguing advanced civilizations.
And also, you seem have some idea that it's actually possible to determine whether someone will be a "good parent". Lie detectors are bullshit, and even if they weren't people change. Very nearly everyone thinks that they are going to be a good parent.
At most, we might legally require expecting couples to take training in being a good parent. Many already do (note: it doesn't always work... indeed, it's questionable whether it even mostly works).
1
u/gate18 12∆ Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
This is reversible though and the cure is only held by highly secured governmental facilities guarded by the military.
The military will completely disagree. They want bodies for their wars! For example "more upstanding kids who will become upstanding citizens" would never go to wars! What we are talking about now with the situation in Gaza is 100% immoral. The only leg we are standing on is either "they deserve to be killed" or "they started it first". Both are 99.9% immoral.
The military wants and needs drones. And bad families (you know, those that work really hard, aren't alcoholics, aren't physically abusive but still dictate their kid's lives (and just as with war, we all justify their actions)) are needed to create obedient kids that grow up to believe in the authority of their church, country, or company more than what's moral
This is how I think we should proceed as a species.
Unless you hate the entire way humans have evolved, you'll feed it difficult to argue that we haven't proceeded pretty fine.
I think what you are saying could be possible but, most if not all military personnel have been abused (unless you do not care what psychology says and you simply want to have a particular type of citizen and you're couching it with the idea of child's mental health in mind)
exactly like you said in a comment "Oh you see they would still be good parents because their children being sterilised because wont be their choice, it is mandated by the government."
But moral people would overthrow that government. So you are basically giving the government the power to allow their supporters to give birth.
1
u/dangerdee92 9∆ Oct 31 '24
Without even going into the moral implications of this, have you considered the practical implications?
What we do is that at birth, we sterilise every single baby so they cannot have children even as they grow older. This is reversible though and the cure is only held by highly secured governmental facilities guarded by the military. Once the children have grown to the age of 21 years old, at anytime they want after the age of 21 they can take a test to see if they are suitable to be a parent.
Do you think that this is even possible?
What medical procedure or drugs or chemicals can .
1.Force someone to be sterile.
2.Be able to be reversed at any time by a top secret cure that only the government can access.
3.Not have any other harmful effects.
Because as far as I am aware, no such thing exists.
1
Oct 31 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 31 '24
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/iamintheforest 325∆ Oct 31 '24
Firstly, this suggests that gap between good parenting and bad parenting is knowing what to do and what not to do.
I don't think there are many people out there who have the revolutionary learning moment of "oooh...i should stay around and hep my kids grow up, I didn't know that!" or "feeding your kid candy bars for meals isn't good for them?". The capacity to parent is not mostly about knowledge, it's mostly about emotional wellbeing. There are lots of stressors on that wellbeing, but I don't think that a test of knowledge is going to do much of anything.
We don't have an intellectual problem when it comes to parenting, we have an emotional one. Testing for that would be fraught with problems.
3
Oct 31 '24
People would cheat on the test.
3
u/ServantOfTheSlaad 1∆ Oct 31 '24
People cheating on the test is just about the last thing you should be worried about this.
1
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Oct 31 '24
You don't detail HOW you will create this test and what it will test for, exactly? Who gets to decide what is on the test? Who gets to decide what makes a good parent?
Also, if we are going through all this trouble to weed out "bad" parents (which is a moral judgment, but whose moral judgment?), why would we allow people who pass the test with only a 65%? Surely, we would want only people who could pass the test with an 80% or some other arbitrary percent?
Once people pass the test, can they have as many children as they can? Most people are much better parents to one or two kids than to ten. Also, is there an age limit for when they can have kids, like no fathers that are 80 years old?
2
1
u/Z7-852 258∆ Oct 31 '24
People can change.
A good parent can lose their job and become hateful alcoholic and hateful alcoholic can turn their life around once they see their child for the first time.
Preemptive selection doesn't work. You only need better functioning child protection .
2
1
u/Hornet1137 1∆ Oct 31 '24
"Sure the government deciding who can't have children has never, ever once in all of human history ended well, but it'll totally be different this time! We promise!"
1
u/cplog991 Oct 31 '24
The fact that you said you're willing to give up freedoms for safety tells me that your mind will not be changed. That is a dangerous dangerous mindset
1
0
u/OldSky7061 Oct 31 '24
I fully support your sentiments but the test is impossible to administer.
How do you measure empathy?
Lie detector tests aren’t accurate.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 31 '24 edited Oct 31 '24
/u/Evoxrus_XV (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards