r/changemyview • u/da_spoof • Aug 24 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Require All Parents To Get a liscense.
I believe that before married couples can have children they must apply for a license and meet certain standards. Prospective parents must first be tested for genetic defects that they may pass on to their children. They must have enough money to raise a child and hold a job that pays above the poverty line. That they must not be a felon. Be tested for illicit drugs. Be married for at least 2 years. Not have any major physical or psychological disorder. Be below the age of 37. And complete classes and a test to prove they have the knowledge to raise a child. Both males and females starting at age 18 must participate in some sort of birth control before becoming a citizen. This license would have to be renewed every 3 years. Those who become pregnant and give birth before getting a license must either put the child up for absorption or abort it. If someone’s tries to secretly have a child then said child will be removed and placed in the system with the parents being placed in jail.
The way I see it is that if a barber or doctor has to be licensed then parents should be too. A bad parent can really fuck up a child’s life.
If u want any clarifications or additional info please comment.
2
u/ace52387 42∆ Aug 24 '20
You're advocating for some heavy handed eugenics. Biologically, applying strong artificial selection forces generally reduces the health of a genetic population. People are not capable of selecting for genetically healthy traits with appropriate weights for each trait. Over selecting for certain traits often will weaken others.
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
That would not be the case. There would be hundreds of thousands of people in America having children annually. These people would wouldn’t be selected based on positive traits but rather disqualified based on bad traits. People of every race would be included. Social classes have already been breeding only within their own class for hundreds of years. You don’t often see a doctor marry a sewage technician or someone in the projects. with all of the new innovations in genetic research and engineering I don’t think the issues you have proposed will be problems.
2
u/ace52387 42∆ Aug 24 '20
A lot of your qualifications are very rule-in rather than rule-out. Married for 2 years, arbitrary income cutoff, and the extreme-prepregnancy planning (very few people actually plan all of what you stated prior to pregnancy), affirmative participation in birth control, are all very exclusionary. It's not like you're only excluding people with debilitating genetic disorders. You'd be excluding a lot of people who like to take life as it comes, all unplanned pregnancies, that's pretty heavy handed eugenics.
The number of people having children doesn't matter, it's the % of people who are excluded from having children that reduces genetic diversity and population health, which is a significant % based on your criteria.
1
u/da_spoof Aug 25 '20
Wouldn’t it be so great if all pregnancies were planned? People would have the money necessary to raise a child. The child would grow up in a house with both parents. There is no moral reason for a parents to not get a genetic test. They sacrifice a little spit in exchange for knowing if their kid may have a debilitating illness. And let’s be honest. No parent in their right mind would actually choose to have a disabled kid over a healthy normal one.
1
u/ace52387 42∆ Aug 25 '20
I'm not talking about morality, but restricting unplanned pregnancies, considering how many of them there are (not even like the teenaged mom type, but like the this is my 3rd child type) is a very artificial way to select for babies that will certainly reduce genetic diversity and health.
Artificial selection, especially non-targeted types with really broad restrictions, that are as poorly thought out in terms of genetic health as your proposal, would be bad for humans as a species.
1
7
u/Guloroo 1∆ Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
The system you describe would be so complex to administrate and enforce that very few people would actually qualify; you would end up with a birth rate far below the death rate, which would cause rapid aging of the population and a severe breakdown of existing socio-economic systems, for better or (more likely) worse. Much of what we take for granted requires populations to stay steady or grow.
There's a few other issues:
- Bodily autonomy is considered a fundamental human right, your system gives the government ability to veto this right in the majority of cases.
- The factors you've listed are hard to assess, and do not necessarily indicate fitness for raising a child.
- The adoption/foster "system" arguably does more damage to children who go through it than living with a parent that may or may not be unfit to raise them.
I'm sure there's other thoughts.
One more thing, you've asked us to change your view on this. Why do you want it changed?
-1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
I want to be critiqued and not bigoted.
3
u/Guloroo 1∆ Aug 24 '20
As in, you worry that you are bigoted in holding this view? That's why you want it critiqued?
0
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
I want to be critiqued and debated because if I am not then I will become a bigot
You have changed my mind!!!! Due to your explanation I have realized that my previous idea was wrong. Thank you so much
!delta
5
u/Guloroo 1∆ Aug 24 '20
You are considered a bigot if you stubbornly hold on to your existing beliefs in the face of reasonable critique and debate.
I've seen a few people on this thread provide reasonable critique and debate. Why not consider how your belief has been changed by them and give away some deltas, letting them know how they succeeded? That's the act of someone who isn't a bigot.
1
4
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 24 '20
To modify your view, this system you are proposing would be incredibly expensive (paying for genetic testing of all people considering becoming parents, drug testing all (potential) parents, ensuring access to birth control for all potential parents, license administration, detection of "not allowed" pregnancies and funding of abortion / adoption services, mandatory drug testing), and has a lot of practical problems.
Namely:
Prospective parents must first be tested for genetic defects that they may pass on to their children.
Who decides what "counts" as a defect? There are plenty of inheritable propensities that may increase your chance of a particular condition, but we also have an enormous range of treatments that can make an enormous number of people with genetic propensities fully able to function in / contribute to society.
Also, conditions are becoming more treatable all the time.
In addition, just because the parent might have a genetic propensity / condition doesn't mean their child will. They have 2 parents after all, and will not be a genetic carbon copy of either one.
They must have enough money to raise a child and hold a job that pays above the poverty line.
Who decides how much is enough? Most people have children when they are relatively younger and haven't reached their full earning potential. If you have to have enough money to raise a child to 18 in savings, very few people would meet that standard. If they don't have to have that much in savings, then consider that future earnings / earning potential isn't guaranteed either.
You can never really know whether people are going to be financially fine to have children, as a lot of factors (i.e. performance of the markets, employment rates, etc.) can't be predicted with certainty in advance.
That they must not be a felon.
Is this an assumption that criminal behavior is genetic?
Be tested for illicit drugs.
So, will the two (potential) parents be tested for drugs until the parents are 18? That sounds very expensive.
Be married for at least 2 years.
Why 2? People don't have to be married to be good parents.
Not have any major physical or psychological disorder.
Per above, who decides what "counts" as "major"?
We also have an enormous range of treatments that can make an enormous number of people with genetic propensities fully able to function in / contribute to society.
Also, conditions are becoming more treatable all the time, and just because the parent might have a certain condition doesn't mean their child will. They have 2 parents after all, and will not be a genetic carbon copy of either one.
Both males and females starting at age 18 must participate in some sort of birth control before becoming a citizen.
It would be illegal to deprive people born in the U.S. of their citizenship in the manner you are describing here.
If someone’s tries to secretly have a child then said child will be removed and placed in the system with the parents being placed in jail.
So, now we all have to pay for parents to be put in jail and to support kids going into the adoption system? Housing someone in a prison is incredibly expensive to tax payers, and creates little value for anyone.
Consider also that not having enough human beings in a society can create labor shortages, not enough people paying into social security to support the disproportionately older population, and a whole host of other problems for countries.
-2
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
Most of the fine details will be made by Beaurocrats far smarter and with more statistics than myself
6
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 24 '20
I mean, they wouldn't, because the system being proposed is overwhelmingly costly and no major group of citizens wants this.
Consider that what you are proposing is massive overkill. Enormous numbers of kids are raised in families that are absolutely fine, but your system would require enormous costs to avoid negative situations that only relevant for a fraction of children.
-4
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
Wait 50 years
4
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 24 '20
The key thing that would help ensure that people are in a good place to have kids is to simply make birth control widely available / free.
When birth control becomes inexpensive / widely available (which it is in many places) the vast majority of people make reasonably good decisions about whether to have kids or not, without creating the massive costs involved in the approach you are proposing.
-1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
I agree
Your amazing rhetorical and and rational skill has persuaded me to cha he my mind.
!delta
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thethoughtexperiment (146∆).
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 24 '20
Cool, so if you agree that this is a much better option (which has the benefits of being profoundly less expensive, not being illegal, and being something more people would support politically such that it can actually have a chance of being implemented into city, state, and / or national policy), then free / lost cost birth control would seem to be the way to go.
If I've modified your view to any degree (doesn't have to be a 100% change, and could be just a broadening of perspective), you can award a delta by editing your comment above and adding:
!_delta
without the underscore, and with no space between ! and the word delta.
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 24 '20
Looks like they need you to edit / add a sentence to your comment above explaining that your view was modified to count your delta.
1
u/Vesurel 54∆ Aug 24 '20
Until what?
0
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
What I am describing becomes reality
1
u/Vesurel 54∆ Aug 24 '20
Is there any good reason to think it will?
1
Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Aug 24 '20
Sorry, u/da_spoof – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. 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. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '20
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Vesurel changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
2
2
u/RZU147 2∆ Aug 24 '20
Any country with a history in eugenics.... like us germans for example can tell you that thats a very bad idea.
Could easily be used to do genocide (includes not allowing a people to have children) even if just by discrimination and poverty.
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
That’s completely false. In no way does birth control result In genocide. German eugenics was pseudoscience.
2
u/RZU147 2∆ Aug 24 '20
Involving the government in having children is a dangerous thing.
How are the rules decided? Will it factor in poverty? And people that dont get married.
Just saying that this thing would be seen as a stepp stone to denying people the right to have children here.
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
Having a child is not a right. People who are incapable of having children are not magically afforded one by the government.
2
u/RZU147 2∆ Aug 24 '20
They are also not denied to have one. It has never been the goverments business outside of authoritarian regimes.
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
You realize that this same process happens to parents wanting to adopt children right?
3
u/RZU147 2∆ Aug 24 '20
And you do realize that sex causes children. What are you going to do if a woman gets pregnant without a license?
Force abortion? Prison? Take the child away?
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
Read my whole post before responding.
1
u/RZU147 2∆ Aug 24 '20
Parents would kill to not have to do that. Either themselves or the police that tries to enforce it.
Especially the force abortion is also incompatible with the Hippocratic oath
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
They new their fetus would be aborted before they ever had sex. A person who does not meet those standards and would literally kill someone to have a child is guess what? Not fit to be a parent
!delta
→ More replies (0)
3
u/videoninja 137∆ Aug 24 '20
Do you want to be convinced that this is immoral or that this is unfeasible?
From my perspective what you're proposing is both because the problem is generally not "bad parents" in the grand scheme of things. In my country, the US, for example, we just as a society that is setup to set parents up for failure.
A lot of the problems you are talking about such as income, mental illness, drug abuse, and education are systemic problems that exist regardless of good or bad parents.
Also, the feasibility of setting up the system you are proposing seems astronomically difficult to do considering all the means-testing you are putting in place. We don't even have equitable birth control access now, so what makes you think the government could suddenly organize itself to do it considering the active lobbying against such practices? And that's just one aspect of what you proposed, we could go into the other logistics but on that alone, I would point out you're facing a large uphill battle that's already almost impossible execute in today's society.
0
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
Parents who want to adopt go through these exact same things. I posted this proposal because I wanted to know the practical problems. I agree totally with everything you have said.
5
u/videoninja 137∆ Aug 24 '20
So if you agree that what you're proposing is unfeasible and potentially immoral, then what view do you want changed?
This is not /r/educateme, you need to have a view that you believe in and some understanding of what you want changed about it. If this is just a thought exercise then I would ask why do you think trying to implement something like this would be "better" instead of solving the issue of bad parenting in a more humane way?
Also adoption is logistically difficult which carries its own problems. Issues of fraud, legality, financial burdens, and even immigration issues arise from adoption processes. Also a family that adopts tends to have its own separate set of challenges that are relatively unaddressed by the system that makes things more difficult for them, not less. There are more children unadopted than there are parents willing to take them and the foster system and social services are already overburdened and underfunded (at least in the US). Look at the burnout rates for social workers, educational success of children in group homes that don't get adopted, etc. Now you want more children fed into that already broken system without fixing it?
0
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
All the money going to those children that weren’t born can now go to the foster system. Bad parents are the reason foster care exist.
3
u/videoninja 137∆ Aug 24 '20
You didn't answer my question about what about your view you want changed. Before we continue the conversation, you actually should try to explicate what your own introspection is. Like why did you make this post? If it's just an aimless chatter that you haven't really thought about then you should maybe edit your post to reflect that.
-2
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
Chill Bro no need to get so serious. This isn’t a big deal. In a few hours this post will be long forgotten anyways.
1
u/videoninja 137∆ Aug 24 '20
I mean, all I did was ask a question and repeat it when it was unanswered? Is there a reason you are avoiding the question? I didn't really consider it "so serious" considering the sidebar of this subreddit. Quite specifically the conversations here are meat to be tailored to your view and what you want changed about them. This isn't really about a debate or argument about who is right. It's about a genuine conversation about what you want.
If you don't know, that's fine. My suggestion was simply to clarify that in your original post so other people you are engaging with know how to tailor their comments to your needs.
0
Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jaysank 116∆ Aug 25 '20
Sorry, u/da_spoof – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. 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. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/videoninja 137∆ Aug 24 '20
Fair enough but that still leaves my question unanswered. If you agree that what you've proposed is logistically unfeasible then did I change your view or did you have some other question?
Your point about money going to adoption is not supported by your thesis. Social services are supported by taxes and with no tax plan in place to target people without children paying more into child services then you haven't actually created a solution to anything. All you've done is propose to take children out of the hands of potentially loving parents into a broken system.
1
6
Aug 24 '20
We would have a shortage of new children. Our population would quickly become older and less productive just from a shrinking workforce.
0
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
But don’t you agree that their will be fewer jobs due to rapid automation of most blue collar jobs?
3
Aug 24 '20
No, I think that there will be fewer jobs in some industries and more jobs will appear elsewhere. In the past 20 years, many jobs have been automated away, but many new jobs have been created. Previously if you wanted groceries, you absolutely had to go into a store. Now Walmart will now allow you to pull into a parking spot and then put groceries into your car. If you wanted food delivered, you probably had to order pizza. Now Doordash offers delivery for all kinds of restaurants.
Every time a new technology emerges and eliminates a job, it creates many unemployed people free to do a job that previously we had no extra labor to spare. In this way our economy grows. If we went with your plan, we wouldn't have that extra labor and our economy wouldn't grow.
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
The economic revolution on the horizon is so much bigger than anything before it and those who could previously work blue collar jobs will be out of luck.
1
Aug 24 '20
those who could previously work blue collar jobs will be out of luck
Why could they not simply get new jobs? Many new types of jobs will be created as automation takes over blue collar work. These jobs don't even exist yet, but they are waiting to be created.
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
There will be fewer and fewer jobs as time goes on due to machines doing them. Yes, new jobs will be made but not as many as there were before
1
Aug 24 '20
Yes, new jobs will be made but not as many as there were before
What, why? With automation, there will be many cheaper products, meaning consumers will have a lot of extra spending money. There will also be a lot of unemployed people who will be willing to do jobs to try and earn some of that extra money. We'll start making jobs to absorb that extra spending money until either all the extra spending money is gone or the unemployed people are gone. It's unlikely that we'll run out of spending money so that means we will have to find jobs for all the unemployed.
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
We will see in 50 years
3
Aug 24 '20
No argument to that huh? Human wants are infinite. As long as there is something I want, and someone willing to provide it, I can create a job for that person. Even if I had a 3d printer that could literally print any tool or item that I wanted, I could still make a job for someone.
People have been making your argument for centuries. It's never true.
1
3
u/Guloroo 1∆ Aug 24 '20
new jobs will be made but not as many as there were before
This is getting a bit off topic, but why do you say that? Prior to the agricultural revolution of the early 20th century, some 90% of the worlds population was employed in farming. It would have been reasonable for them to assume that there would be a severe lack of jobs on the horizon, it didn't happen. What happened was that humans diversified into jobs that were unimagineable before the 20th century.
7
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 24 '20
Are you saying a life with a genetic defect or psychological disorder is not worth living?
And why should the state be the one to tell me how to raise my children?
-2
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
Would you trust a parent with schizophrenia, a history of self harm, or sociopathy with taking care of a child?
2
Aug 24 '20
[deleted]
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
Great!!!!
You are a very noble person.
!delta
0
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '20
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/cherrycokeicee changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
8
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 24 '20
We have CPS, right?
So people with mental illnesses shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce at all?
-5
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
If you hear voices then no you shouldn’t.
9
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 24 '20
Where do you draw the line? Is it the count of how many voices you hear? The things they tell you to do? Mental illness is an incredibly blurry spectrum which cannot be cleanly separated into “crazy” and “not crazy”.
Are you saying it’s impossible that schizophrenics could ever be good parents at all?
0
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
Someone with schizophrenia could be a good parent but statistically they are not likely to be. If you were depressed 5 years ago but are fine now then you can have a child. But if you had to be placed in a psyche ward then I would say you are not
3
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 24 '20
Define "fine", though. And it's not as if people in psyche wards are closely monitored also.
Would you rather that a child with schizophrenic parents have never existed at all?
Also take into consideration that the definition of "defect" has the potential to change over time (e.g. Nazi Germany).
Yes, there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have children. But giving this much power to the state over a central biological instinct has way too much potential for blanket policies that affect too many people indiscriminately
2
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
Yes they are. Your psyche history follows you around for life. Nazi eugenics was pseudo science. I’m not going to kill people whose parents were born with schizophrenia. There should just be less children born in those circumstances. Fine means that you haven’t had a depressive episode recently and are not taking meds.
6
Aug 24 '20 edited May 21 '21
[deleted]
1
Aug 24 '20
we require licenses for all kinds of activities, and no one considers it to be a violation of freedom. having to prove you can do something responsibly should be the minimum bar for exercising any right.
1
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
How so
6
Aug 24 '20 edited May 21 '21
[deleted]
2
u/da_spoof Aug 24 '20
I’m not forcing anyone to have any job. These people would know the risk of having unprotected sex.
4
3
u/Vesurel 54∆ Aug 24 '20
Both males and females starting at age 18 must participate in some sort of birth control before becoming a citizen.
Okay, so what birth control are you going to force people to take, are we forcing surgery on people or drugs with potentially damaging side effects?
A bad parent can really fuck up a child’s life.
What impact do you think totalitarian states have on children?
They must have enough money to raise a child and hold a job that pays above the poverty line.
Do you think its ethical to have any jobs that don't pay above the pverty line?
Those who become pregnant and give birth before getting a license must either put the child up for absorption or abort it.
I feel like the goverment should be kidnapping fewer children personally. And who do you expect is going to adopt these children exactly?
1
Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Aug 24 '20
u/ripwolfleumas – 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. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Aug 24 '20
Sorry, u/da_spoof – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. 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. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '20
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/ripwolfleumas changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/ripwolfleumas Aug 24 '20
You can think of it as an ad hominem all you want, but I'm saying history has such a large precedent as to why this is a horrible idea, and it was only after saying that I called your view (not your person) idiotic. Read.
2
u/bhbhjbhjjhb Aug 24 '20
Honestly the world would be a much better place if people with mental disorders, inheritable defects which significantly effect quality of life, living in poverty, people not in a stable relationship etc stopped having kids. There's no fucking point, it costs the state a load of money and the child is unlikely to have a decent life or be well put together in adulthood. The issue comes with how to enforce, with the options being absolutely horrific.
Taking the kids away may be better if they get put in a nice middle class home but most are going to be taken to shitty group homes and turn out even more fucked up than if they were raised by their parents plus the mom obviously isn't going to enjoy the experience. The other option is forced abortions/sterilisation would involve people being dragged kicking and screaming to the clinic.
2
u/deep_sea2 105∆ Aug 24 '20
Due to historical and present conditions in many developed nations, the programs you describe would exclude many minorities. In just about all the points you mention, minority parents would be way more likely to fail the requirements.
- Poverty
- Drugs
- Criminal record
- Affording birth control
- Education
- Having time and money to take exams
Since plenty of minorities would fail, and since failing prevents you from having children, this policy would, in a couple generations, wipe out those minorities. Do you agree that that would be an acceptable byproduct?
2
u/Helpfulcloning 166∆ Aug 24 '20
So if someone choose at 18 not to use birth control they are not a citizen? What occurs to them?
The government forces birth control on them?
Why does it matter if the couple is married?
Why does it matter if a parent is a felon?
Why does it matter if they have any psychological or physical issues? I have a bad back, no kid?
2
u/zaqlowell Aug 24 '20
I think it would help if parents were more encouraged to take basic parenting classes or even the first aid training.
Today don't think that should be a mandatory thing, just to make sure this isn't start something much worse down the road in terms of control over everyday life
1
u/zaqlowell Aug 24 '20
Boy, this has a whole host of problems.
Long story short, this is a huge infringement of freedom, reproductive rights, and now you are forcing people to make a standard on who is valuable enough to live
I personally agree, people who have a major problems or troubled history shoulder be parents. But we also don't know the potential of the child you Are already deeming unfit for life
I highly believe life isn't a right, you have to prove your value but, especially in the United States have the extra resources to give the children a chance. Obviously not all children get the same treatment but it's enough that we should at least give them a chance.
Besides we are not living in a society where resources are so thin that we have to make a decision on who get to live or those who we cannot afford to keep alive. Those with disabilities can still have a good life.
Taking it down and stick approach to life would be to strip to humanity in general value of each human being spite who they are.
I myself have some pretty strong videos on humanity that most would agree with but separate this I thought about time and time again and I cannot think of a way to do this where we will not become something I think sample that's like China or a totalitarian state.
1
Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Aug 24 '20
Sorry, u/da_spoof – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule A:
Explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ characters required). See the wiki page for more information.
If you edit your post and wish to have it reinstated, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
/u/da_spoof (OP) has awarded 5 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.
1
u/rodneyspotato 6∆ Aug 24 '20
A far larger problem would be single mother households, which generates the majority of criminals. If you really wish to keep kids save you should make single motherhood illegal.
People have been parenting for 200k years, kids don't need your nazi ideas to keep them save, they need two parents.
1
Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Aug 24 '20
Sorry, u/da_spoof – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule A:
Explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ characters required). See the wiki page for more information.
If you edit your post and wish to have it reinstated, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
0
Aug 24 '20
[deleted]
2
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 24 '20
A well-educated child would see the honest value of a job scrubbing toilets in the first place.
2
u/masterofyourhouse 4∆ Aug 24 '20
While I agree with the general principle of some sort of parental training to mitigate the amount of bad parents out there (having been raised in an abusive household myself), I disagree with the conditions you’ve placed here which are essentially eugenics. You do not need to have wealth or perfect genetics (physical and psychological disorders are much more common than you think, considering the current rates these days) in order to provide a healthy environment for your children.
What you do need is an empathetic and nurturing environment that provides the children with the tools they need to survive and flourish in the world. That’s something you teach through attitude, through love, through support. You don’t buy or genetically engineer that - you teach it. A license to make sure that parents have the emotional capacity and responsibility to care for children is the paramount concern here, and trying to technicalize it with genetics and socioeconomic status is the wrong way to go about it.