Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should children be a Right for all? or a Privilege for those that "deserve" it?
Right 18 31.03%
Privilege 22 37.93%
Dunno 3 5.17%
Other 15 25.86%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-13-2009, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Tampa
3,982 posts, read 10,433,616 times
Reputation: 1200

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
What? No.

First, there's already enough crap in our food and water.

Second, this plan seems Hitler-esque to me.

There always have been and always will be bad parents. For those who are REALLY bad, take their kids away. The government has no business deciding who can and can't parent a child....especially not before the child(ren) is/are even born.
so, you see no benefits to a system like that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2009, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,404,564 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalblue View Post
so, you see no benefits to a system like that?
The costs are about 300 times more than any benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,648,499 times
Reputation: 36642
In America, everything is a right unless specifically prohibited by a law that meets constitutional scrutiny. Remember that the Bill of Rights is not about rights that people have, it is about rights the government does not have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Eastern time zone
4,469 posts, read 7,173,598 times
Reputation: 3499
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalblue View Post
I was thinking from the angle -

we could prob put birth control in the food/water supply, keeping people from getting preggers unless they took special pills.

the question then becomes, who determines who gets the pills?

we all know people that are horrible parents, and so many people have unwanted pregnancies.

would the cost outweigh the benefits?

I see no merit to the idea, and many problems.
Chemical birth control has both psychological and physiological side effects for the user that contraindicate use by many. (Also side effects for the user's partner, since many decrease sexual desire.)
Further, many women are sufficiently fertile that they become pregnant while correctly using birth control pills-- which endangers the offspring as these particular substances are highly teratogenic.
Studies done on water supplies contaminated by the hormones used for BCPs show a number of fatal anomalies in the aquatic populations. One could safely assume, then, that other species would be likewise affected by consuming either the water, the insect population near the water supply, or the fish. That's leaving aside for the moment the other problems involved with a massive fish-kill.
You'd have an ecological disaster in the making, and that doesn't even begin to consider the economic, social, and national security ramifications.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 09:50 AM
 
9,873 posts, read 10,781,215 times
Reputation: 3108
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalblue View Post
Should children be a Right for all?

or a Privilege for those that "deserve" it?

and, if it is a Privilege, who determines who "deserves" it?
Please! I understand this is meant to be a provacative thread, but, you only have to ask how would this silly hypothetical be enforced, and the discussion is over!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Penobscot Bay, the best place in Maine!
1,895 posts, read 5,883,160 times
Reputation: 2703
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalblue View Post
I was thinking from the angle -

we could prob put birth control in the food/water supply, keeping people from getting preggers unless they took special pills.

the question then becomes, who determines who gets the pills?

we all know people that are horrible parents, and so many people have unwanted pregnancies.

would the cost outweigh the benefits?
Right..... So it seems logical to you to put chemicals into the food and water supply that would manipulate both male and female biology (because I KNOW you aren't talking about just targeting females..right?) and prevent them from reproducing, and this introduction of chemicals would begin at birth, likely harming the hormonal and biological make-up of developing bodies and brains, in an attempt to thwart the very small percentage of parents that abuse or neglect their children? You don't think giving children high doses of reproductive-manipulating chemicals is, in and of itself, abusive and/or just completely whacked-out? That is some messed up **** right there....

Yeah, I know a few parents that were not good parents at all. And a know a few thousand more who ARE good parents. Why do you think that punishing all for the misdeeds of a few is a good idea? Why not just lock everyone up in prison when they are born until they "prove" that they can be productive members of society...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,648,499 times
Reputation: 36642
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777 View Post
Please! I understand this is meant to be a provacative thread, but, you only have to ask how would this silly hypothetical be enforced, and the discussion is over!
Not so silly. Moving about is a right, even in your own car (settled casebook law), but the government retains the authority to regulate driving in the interest of public safety. Accordingly, a person is nominally granted the right to a drivers license, but that can be withdrawn in a few instances where a person has demonstrated that he would be a public danger on the road.

The government could, in a very small number of cases, restrict the right of certain individuals to be parents. It would be reasonable for such individuals to be given some choices. Such as A) accept medical intervention to make it impossible, B) agree to surrender custody of any child, or C) face criminal sanctions for violation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Eastern time zone
4,469 posts, read 7,173,598 times
Reputation: 3499
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post

The government could, in a very small number of cases, restrict the right of certain individuals to be parents. It would be reasonable for such individuals to be given some choices. Such as A) accept medical intervention to make it impossible, B) agree to surrender custody of any child, or C) face criminal sanctions for violation.

The government, in the person of CPS, already does this.
Hence the patient (pregnant crack ho) I had a few years back who said she intended to keep getting pregnant "until they let me keep one".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 12:55 PM
 
9,873 posts, read 10,781,215 times
Reputation: 3108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Not so silly. Moving about is a right, even in your own car (settled casebook law), but the government retains the authority to regulate driving in the interest of public safety. Accordingly, a person is nominally granted the right to a drivers license, but that can be withdrawn in a few instances where a person has demonstrated that he would be a public danger on the road.

The government could, in a very small number of cases, restrict the right of certain individuals to be parents. It would be reasonable for such individuals to be given some choices. Such as A) accept medical intervention to make it impossible, B) agree to surrender custody of any child, or C) face criminal sanctions for violation.
Yeah, I can hear the argument now! It is a Woman,s RIGHT to kill a baby, but not her right to give life to one!! Kinda takes away that whole "Pro Choice" defense doesnt it? Hmmmmmm............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2009, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,084 posts, read 12,020,295 times
Reputation: 4125
It's a right (and personal choice) to have children or not, it's a privilege for other people to pay for them. No one has the right to abuse, kill, or neglect medical treatment for another person, even if they are the minors guardian...that is not acting in their best interest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top