Kopikatsu said:
Blind Sight said:
richardplex said:
Gizmodo said:
Kang Ya, a 29-year-old from Sacramento, has been taken into custody for what police are saying were fatal burns administered to her 6-week-old daughter, via microwave. Happy nightmaring.
Happy nightmaring indeed, this is exactly why I don't watch the news and try to lock myself out of any news from any media. Crap like these stories, and this: http://bit.ly/lsMOE8 make me wish there was a way that people had to register and pass some form of test to have children, sort of like how you need a pass to have a child in china. don't flame me on this, I'm not commenting on whether China's one-child system or its consequences are yay or naye, merely commenting on how the registration to have a child clearly in some manner is possible to do, and should be done o'er here, because quite frankly some people do not have the right to have children
The problem is, who determines the qualifications for being a parent? How possibly corrupt would anyone in that position become?
Not very corrupt at all. The position would be very simple.
The person in question sees the potential parent's criminal record and the results of three psych evaluations taken a few years apart. No names, no ethnicity, nothing.
If the person is fucked up, they get denied. If they aren't fucked up, they don't.
You're oversimplifying a very complex institution that would take a large amount of infrastructure and bureaucracy to be maintained. Firstly, I severely doubt that any government institution would do such checks without filing of names and SINs, it would be impossible to maintain such a system without it. Secondly, the system you mention is still a system where corruption would thrive. You don't think a bureaucrat (or anyone involved with the process, for that matter) would take a bribe to falsify psych evaluations or criminal record checks, especially in a system that is anonymous? Completely unrealistic. Anyone with connections inside this fictional institution would be able to influence it to get a free pass, similar to how high ranking Chinese officials can get away with having multiple children.
Also, opinions on how an individual is 'fucked up' is not an objective notion. By the logic of this institution, my grandfather would have probably been refused due to his criminal record, yet that did not make him a bad parent. You might consider psychological issues and a criminal record as a sign of a bad parent, but others might consider other factors. What about income rates? Or genetic markers for hereditary diseases? These are all elements that would be considered if such a process would be created. Hell, some might even consider smoking to be the sign of a bad parent, due to the exposure to second hand smoke and the possibility that the child will learn from the parent. There is no objective way to determine a bad parent before they've had bloody kids, only guesswork and estimation.
On top of all that, you have the problem of dealing with people who reject this institution and have children regardless. Consider this: an unregistered parent, who has done nothing harmful to their child, is discovered. What should the response be? No response at all is impossible, as it makes the institution powerless. How about removing the child, despite no actual harm occurring? Fines? Maybe even jail time for the parent? Suddenly this 'very simple' institution has spun out of control.
Having a bureaucracy determine what is a good parent is absolute nonsense. It's quite easy to say that in theory it would be simple, but in reality it would be over-bloated and very complex. And that's not even getting into the moral issues of having the government determine whether you can have children...