I wonder why some people are allowed kids

[Andy Turnbull]

Saw this on the BBC website

Absolutely shocking. There is no way that woman should be allowed to keep custody of her daughter after that.

Andy

[Hero]

I'd love to tell you guys about my ex sister-in-law sometime...

[Shockprowl]

That's unbelievable. See unfit parents all the time in my line of work. Went to a house the other day. The house was in a terrible state. No wall paper, horrible carpets, 4 year old boy running around. Living room FULL of empty bottles of Stella and empty cans of Carlsberg. Latest FIFA playstation game, huge TV. House stank of smoke. Can afford things like that, but can't make it a decent place for their kiddie. Sorry, I'm prob being too cynical. Just Mrs Shockprowl and I go without things inorder to make sure Piglet has what she needs. To some people you get the impression children are an inconvinience. Why have them then? Why do they have them so young? Out of wedlock/settle-commited relationship?

[rurudyne]

It's sad to see things like this. And they happen far too often too.

Some years ago (a notable example from memory) I was watching a PBS or Discovery show about some woman out to climb Everest. At one point during the show she was talking about her family and her young child. It seemed clear to me that the woman understood her having a baby from a purely selfish POV where the child only mattered from the woman's sense of fulfillment — it was listening in as one guy brags about restoring an old car that he never drives. The sense of utter selfishness on her part was brought home by her attitude about climbing the mountain — that too was something expressly for her fulfillment. It mattered not one jot that her young child was without her mom for all the weeks it takes to climb the mountain or that it could be left without a mother if things went badly ... it was for that woman all about herself and for herself.

So people like the lady in the story really aren't unique. If from selfishness or crass carelessness — rather than stupidity and ignorance — people seem to be behaving in this way more and more these days.

But don't bet on our culture at large to condemn people who act like this when there is no tragedy involved. As it stands there is a social force set loose in our world that might be called indiscrimination, or the notion that the only way to truly avoid being prejudiced and discriminatory is to be indiscriminate.

As one pundit said not long ago:

(N)one of the ideas that mankind has come up with — none of the religions, none of the philosophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government — have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, poverty, crime, and injustice must be found — can only be found — in the attempt to be right.

If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn't disagree, surely we wouldn't fight. If we didn't fight, of course we wouldn't go to war. Without war, there would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime; without crime, there would be no injustice. It's a utopian vision, and all that's required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality, and decency — all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving toward it.

[Shockprowl]

Good post, rurudyne.

Ones life doesn't have to stop 'cos you've had a child. But, dangerous pursuits shouldn't be undertaken anymore, 'cos the child IS your responsibility, and you have a responsibility to it. Having a child is an adventure in it's own right. Possibily the most difficult adventure of them all. Certainly the most rewarding, in my humble opinion.

[andrewbcalculating]

James Whale of Talksport has a theory about regulating parents having children. He says that all male babies should be sterilised at birth and that when a couple want to have kids they have to apply to a governing body. The couple would be investigated to see if they are psychologically and financially capable of supporting children. Once the couple are certified ideal parents then the man can have his sterilisation reversed and the couple can try to conceive.

In theory it seems a good idea but while I've been typing this I've played devil's advocate and come up with some negative points:
1) Having males sterilised could mean that men have no fear to the consequences of sex as they can't get a women pregnant so they could embark on promiscuous sex and cause the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

2) If the man or the women in the couple dies then the widow may not be able to cope with looking after any children by themselves and therefore become not an ideal parent.

3) If it is deemed that the couple are fine to have one child but end up conceiving twins, one of the children could be aborted or taken away. Men would then have to provide sperm to be frozen so that only the correct designated number of children are artificially produced. Once the sperm has been provided then the man would have to be sterilised again.

4) If the man is sterilised at birth but the process doesn't work and in later life the man gets a women pregnant by accident then the child could be aborted or taken away.

If I had more time I could go on and on with scenarios.

As I said before, in theory it seems a good idea but a lot of thought would have to be put into "what if" scenarios and legislations would have to be drawn up. The result of which could bring up a whole number of arguments against the process and in the end make it unworkable.

|<o>|

[rurudyne]

Why do some people (James Whale in this provided example) want to give any government such extraordinary police powers?

If the people who ran the government, the functionaries and not just the elected officials, were actually perfect beings who could run their own lives, I suppose it would be one thing; but, if they can't even run their own lives why should anyone let them run theirs (to paraphrase the old song)?

The few concerns you list are spot on and likely the mere tip of the Bureaucracyberg. As you said, you could go on.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

China's one-child policy: for or against?

Would China be a better or worse place with unregulated procreation?

In an ideal world, when the population got too big people would limit themselves to one child by choice out of a sense of responsibility. But we don't live in an ideal world, so which is the lesser evil: a rights-infringing law restricting the number of babies, or overpopulation and environmental catastrophe?

Martin

[rurudyne]

The proposed policy (given the way it was presented) actually seems to go well beyond what China has. It isn't about restricting the number of children so much as its about restricting who can be a parent. It is unimaginable that people may be denied the "privilege" to have children simply because of their race or some unpopular belief or opinion they may have? That's what I meant by police powers — the ability to judge the content of a person's beliefs and opinions would definitely fall under working to only allow "ideal parents." So ... who would be making these choices?

This isn't about the odd forced abortion or harassment of families, it rather has some of the appearance of a eugenics program (but under apparently different rhetoric).

Please understand, I'm what would be called a Classic American Liberal, and as such I may be particularly sensitive to and doubly suspicious about things like this.