Should everyone have the right to be a parent?

[Skeleon]

It's highly controversial, but from a logical point of view, it would almost be silly if humanity would not sacrifice a few people's need to reproduce in order to get rid of nasty diseases and genetical faults.

Well, the problem is, as always, where to draw the line. Things like that can get out of hand quickly. What is a disease?
Is bad eyesight already a bad enough reason?
What about red hair?

I know that's not what you mean but it's what something like this can lead to. Think Gattaca, in the long run.

Also, things like cancer aren't really based on a single genetic cause, they're multifactorial. Meaning that if your, say, uncle has colon carcinoma, you have a higher risk than somebody who doesn't have a sick uncle, but it's still very low.
There are a few cases of distinct genetic disorders that lead to cancer, but they are an absolute minority and, to be honest, still very well treatable because of the known predisposition. For example, a person with adenomatosis polyposis (EDIT: different language, slightly different name) has a very high risk for colon carcinoma (almost 100%) but, since it's known, will be closely monitored and treated if necessary.
Those that regularily die from cancer aren't the people you keep a close eye on but average joes/janes with a certain predisposition.
Also, many/most cancer cases are completely spontaneous without any family history.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Oh good. Just what we need. Eugenics.

This all gets to be rather rediculous after a while.

Might as well kill off the entire species. After all, we're causing a lot of harm to everything else on the planet...

It'd be a lot better without us right?

People can be so selective in what they consider important...

 

[AlphaOmega]

Im so getting banned for this:

They should tone down on people that use religion allmost litteraly and worry about the general IQ of people first

 

[RetiarySword]

They should pass some sort of test first, to see if they are capable of looking after a child. A parent license?

 

[savandicus]

I think we just need better social services so that people who are being terrible parents, i.e abusing, not feeding, whatever. Have their child removed long before it becomes completely crippling to them psycologically. Achieving that is considerable hard, although i imagine the current system atleast does an ok job.

As for the CEO of a bank thing thats just silly, CEO has money and lots of it, can afford baby sitters for when they arent around, child has a extremely well off upbringing and alot more attention than other children due the ability to easily afford a baby sitter.

 

[Rossmallo]

Although i dislike this idea with the govermental fashism on this sort of thing, i really think teenagers should be a lot more sensible - I mean, for gods sake, i was walking home one day and some random chavvy 16 year old girl that i had never seen before yells at me asking "OI, YA WANT A SHAG?"

...Just...I...No words.

 

[S.H.A.R.P.]

It's highly controversial, but from a logical point of view, it would almost be silly if humanity would not sacrifice a few people's need to reproduce in order to get rid of nasty diseases and genetical faults.

Well, the problem is, as always, where to draw the line. Things like that can get out of hand quickly. What is a disease?
Is bad eyesight already a bad enough reason?
What about red hair?

I know that's not what you mean but it's what something like this can lead to. Think Gattaca, in the long run.

Also, things like cancer aren't really based on a single genetic cause, they're multifactorial. Meaning that if your, say, uncle has colon carcinoma, you have a higher risk than somebody who doesn't have a sick uncle, but it's still very low.
There are a few cases of distinct genetic disorders that lead to cancer, but they are an absolute minority and, to be honest, still very well treatable because of the known predisposition. For example, a person with adenomatosis polyposis (EDIT: different language, slightly different name) has a very high risk for colon carcinoma (almost 100%) but, since it's known, will be closely monitored and treated if necessary.
Those that regularily die from cancer aren't the people you keep a close eye on but average joes/janes with a certain predisposition.
Also, many/most cancer cases are completely spontaneous without any family history.

Yep, very good points there, it's almost impossible to draw a line somewhere. Btw, I know cancer isn't necessarily genetic, but it can run in a family, and even though I don't know about how it manifests, it's got to be genetic in some way in some cases. Well thanks for the explanation on the matter anyway.
More on topic, and to be getting personal, cancer is somewhat of recurring phenomenon in my family. Say that humanity decided to limit reproduction in certain groups of people to get rid of diseases (and say that I carry a gene that dramatically increases the chance on cancer), then I might have to stop reproduce. This would be a bummer, since I always imagined myself with kids (not now mind you, I'm 21 and a free soul!). But in my case I might help the world a great deal, and would probably work along. But as some others have pointed out, a lot of people will not be so co-operative, and need to be enforced, which may lead to riots and all other kinds of nasty stuff.

 

[BardSeed]

I agree with this, only when it pertains to people who are already bad parents and want more children. The Dutch have proposed this; they would have the parents prove themselves as good parents after about a year, and then, if they've proved themselves capable, they would be allowed another child.
I am strongly opposed, however, to everybody being screened before they have children. Who's going to control the screening? The government. I do not want the state having that much control over us. Call me paranoid or whatever, but they can't be trusted. I'm sure a lot of you will agree.

 

[Skeleon]

Btw, I know cancer isn't necessarily genetic, but it can run in a family, and even though I don't know about how it manifests, it's got to be genetic in some way in some cases.

Yep, there definitely is a major genetic component to it (but as I said, it isn't necessarily one specific defect you can point at and say: We need to get rid of this one.

Another interesting fact is, that Asian people, for example Japanese, tend to have less cancer cases (especially colon, again), but whenever a family emmigrates to a western country, Europe or USA, their risk of developing cancer almost reaches the same level as that of a European or American within the same generation!

Scientists think it's because of eating habits. Asians tend to eat more fish and practically no red meat, which apparently has a big effect. This is just to show another aspect of the multifactoriality of carcinoma, in this case enviromental.
Not that this'll stop me from eating beef, mind you.

As for your personal case, well, yes, it would be a bummer.
Although, to be honest, I always thought that should I turn out to have any problematic genetic disposition, I wouldn't procreate myself, either.
But I always planned on having kids at some later stage in my life and I guess adoption is still an option should you really be heavily predispositioned.

But, and this is important, these kinds of limitations are in our cases self-imposed! And that's alright!
But making the state force people not to procreate is, in my opinion, a completely different matter. And I'm totally opposed to anything like that.

 

[LowFatLoki]

No.
Why? Because some people don't know what it means to be a parent. When the second born ends up on the streets. Trying again with another child is not the right idea...

 

[latenightapplepie]

The 'right' to have a child is not a basic fundamental human right in my opinion. While I believe everyone should have the right to have children, governments should not be forced to provide their citizens with babies like they should be forced to provide clean water, an equal vote, a decent education, fair trial etc.

Do I think everyone deserves the right to have a child? Yes. 'Have' in the sense of 'give birth to'. This talk of forced abortions is insanity. Child protection to save children from bad parents is perfectly reasonable.

People should be screened for parenting and only when they fulfill certain criteria: ie no psychological ailments, no physical ailments, sufficient dedication to bring up child, time on hand, etc that they should be allowed to have kids.

This is rife with problems. How serious do these aliments, either psychological or physical, need to be? If I have the flu can I have a baby? What about if I'm blind? Or have only one arm? And depression? Or bipolar? Do only genetic aliments count against me? Or the others as well?

Moreover, ideas about parenting change constantly. 500 years ago, children were raised very differently. Why assume that today's ideal model of parenting is the best? What is good parenting for one child is not for another. Not all children can be raised using Your Government's Guide to Producing Good Taxpayers . Last I checked parents know their children better than the government does.

Furthermore, eugenics is a terrible idea, ethically, legally and logically. We don't know everything about the human genome - just look up 'non-coding' or 'junk' DNA.

 

[Vrex360]

I think violent sociopaths should resist the urge to have kids, you know before they eat their own young.

 

[TheFacelessOne]

People should only be parents if they can and will financially support children in a good home (no slums, very little good comes from being raised there), have the time to spend with their kids (maternal/paternal leave, among other things are needed), and know what they are doing, not being overly lenient but not being arbitrarily oppressive (won't let you kid commit violent crimes or do drugs, but would be flexible with the lesser rules if there's reason). Also, no more than 3 kids can be raised at a time. That many kids without the parents really being able to focus on any of them can't be good for them or their intelligence. Basically no redneck kids, kids of parents who are at work constantly, or octuplets.

^ That.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Good god no, no and no again. There are so many people in today's society that should not have children it is utterly frightening. I understand the difficulty of accepting this possibility even if it is only a hypothesis, however I ask though who disagree, are you doing so for your moral beliefs or the well being of the soon to be born child?

Is it fair for a child to be born to a girl barely of legal age, with no job, BF likely in similar position and frankly little hope for a bright future? It was incredibly selfish these people had the child in the first place, now that baby will have to grow up without for a vast majority of its life.

I believe it should be regulated in you must meet certain criteria

- Proof of financial stability; this does not include sudden unforeseeable events such as the recent recession in the United States.
- Proper living environment, suitable for the well being of a child. It is not required to own a home or anything of that extent; frankly you could remain with either of your parents, so long as the home is suitable for a child.
- Able to show adequate ability to raise a child; IE basic/proper parenting skills.
- No ailments that could be resulting in harming the child prior to birth (Yes I understand this is an extremely touchy point. I still do not believe it is fair to the child to be born and live with some of the diseases seen today)

There are likely others I have forgotten however I do not how this is a horrible ideal. We would finally see a decline in teenagers having child and those who have no business raising children whatsoever. Furthermore it would serve as motivation to make something of your life because if you do what so many do today; sit around, the option of having a child is no longer available to you.

 

[beddo]

I think NO.

People should be screened for parenting and only when they fulfill certain criteria: ie no psychological ailments, no physical ailments, sufficient dedication to bring up child, time on hand, etc that they should be allowed to have kids.

You suggest that having ailments, physical or psychological means that you shouldn't be able to be a parent. Why? Who are you to suggest that the child would be well cared for or not? You can be fully functioning and still not capable of giving love to a child who needs it.

In fact your example is rather contrived:

"[...]a woman who is the CEO of a bank and does not have time to bring up a kid, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A KID. If she tries, it should be aborted. This is because the child has the right to have a good life and poor parental support will just make it run into psychological problems later."

If the child has the right to a good life are you not denying that right irrespective of what could actually happen? What if the mother decides to quit her job, get married and bring up the child in a loving family? You would have removed the chance for this to happen by basing a decision upon assumptions of human behaviour.

As a CEO the woman likely has the ability to pay for a very good life for her child. She can afford decent care, provide a healthy diet and lifestyle and a fantastic education. Also, where is your proof that poor parenting always leads to psychological problems? There are many people who were abused in childhood but grew up to become decent citizens, even famous authors.

And if a man has 6 kids and can't support a 7th, he should NOT be allowed to have any more child and should be punished/fined if he does.

What is considered supporting a child? Should each have their own room? Should each have a computer, access to a television? What you considering being able to support a child may not be the reality of the situation.

You solution to this is to fine the parent. Tell me, if he can't afford that many children how would you justify a financially punitive measure? I thought you said the children have the right to a good life yet you advocate taking resources away from the family.

If you counter this by saying the child should be taken away then this will cause it's own problems. It's damaging to remove a child from it's family unless that family is abusive.

The government or another non-profit party has to oversee this project and enforce it strictly

Who would join this 'party'? Given the nature of the programme you would struggle to get a balanced board of members who were trained and highly regarded in ethics. How would you avoid any political influence in the party? What if the party decided it was against single mothers, or bisexual women who become pregnant but move in with another woman? How would you stop this social engineering.

If we start making rules for who can or can't have children we start down a slippery slope. While you may believe this is better for society it's actually a violation of peoples' rights to be treated as equals. In any case, setting up the framework, no matter how well intentioned can lead to far worse consequences than you can imagine.

 

[beddo]

Anyway, the point here is do all women (including those who don't have time to look after kids because they are off drinking coffee with friends) have the right to be parents? And I think they should be forced not to have kids.

This seems a bit misogynistic.

 

[chenry]

Should everyone be a parent? No.

Does everyone have the right? Yes.

 

[Grimm91]

The search button was invented for a reason. Now with that said. The answer is no not everyone should have kids. Reasoning? Not everyone has the ability to be a good parent or provide an adequate home for children.

 

[jimduckie]

when people like octamom get pregnant and can't even care for the kids let alone feed them that is wrong ,what the fuck was she thinking but the doctor was just as stupld and paris hilton shouldn't have kids either she treats a dog like a toy and would do that to a kid too it's not a toy it's a dog you stupld .......