Mumsnet Talk

yars

people just don't like to think beyond the existing.

So true Hulls. I have wanted to start several threads on here lately that pose big, juicy, emotive and challenging philosophical questions about our society. But I have though better of it because they are just too big iykwim, and probably too sensitive for most people's appetites. Instead of being able to debate it sensibly as just a set of ideas, I think the immediate reaction would be for people to jump down my throat and say 'how dare you suggest that you wicked bitch' as though to dare to even put the question out there means, clearly, that I am saying categorically 'this is what I believe.'

Which is not the case at all. I just want to explore things.

But nothing changes or gets better if we cannot ask ourselves the most difficult questions openly and honestly, and thrash out all potential solutions to problems. Even if we arrive at the conclusion that something is best left alone after all.

There are several topics on MN that I read, but rarely ever bother to post on because I just don't see the point in getting my arse toasted by people who are so convinced they already have all the answers to problems that are not going away, that they don't have the headspace to consider anything radical.

No-someone would have to 'play God' with the decision. I can think of lots of people that I would not think fit-and they consider themselves good parents! (lots on MN!)

face to face. Damned autocorrect.

I agree Hully. I had to sit through several hour long phone calls and a fee to face interview before my dog breeder would allow me to take one of her puppies but I have been allowed to spew out children without anyone giving a fuck about how capable, or not, I am.

When I am Prime Minister there will be a whole one hour lesson a week on the NC for senior school aged children about parenting and what constitutes socially responsible behaviour.

But in theory I agree.

You would never ever be able to make a fair test. Tests on this scale are always biased in some form.

So op whose doing the judging then?

The one thing i would like before anyone becomes a parent is a big investment of counselling services. Most people don't recognise why they shouldn't become parents, yet.

Practical tests are a waste of time, as you cannot test whether you would emotionally damage a thing that relies on you for their total emotional needs and development and the test would have to involve wider family.

A contract would have to be signed that you would never have another partner or regular visitor to your home, unless they passed an upto date test.

Speaking as a CP SW and someone who removes children, monitors parenting and carries out assessments and recomends interventions, you could not come up with a "blanket" set of testing.

The right to not be medicated against a natural function is a Human Right, as well as an ethical right.

Thankfully because of the Human Rights Act, it isn't something that we should fear.

If i set my test, i know from past threads that many on MN, wouldn't have passed them.

Most ridiculous idea i've ever heard. Unless you're forcing people to have invasive procedures eg. Coil, or to take medicines against their will how would you do it? It removes basic human rights to your own body. And how will you enforce it with males? Glue a condom to them?

Sure thats a similar theory to hitler, passing a criterea to reproduce?

Lady, yes, sorry, that should say billion. 9 billion is the bulge.

YABU

DH and I are infertiles, so contraception would be an unnecessary PITA. We'd be great parents.

Yes. Just yes.

It is a nice idea but we will always need plenty of lowly workers at the bottom of the pyramid structure and for that reason alone, Yabu.

Also a good hoop Cory <shivers convulsively at the very idea>. Frankly any random mandated hoop that requires parental sacrifice but is not manifestly discriminatory has something going for it.

But I'd settle for "Yes we both definitely want to have a child today"

My concern is that this will unfairly penalize women (who we will know are having the kid) and not the man. Sure, if she tells you who he is, fine and good, but if she can't, then she's still penalized and he's off to make more babies.
Unless you have EVERYONE's DNA you can't possibly track him if he's a rebel rapist intent on spreading his sperm.

And you'll be encouraging lots and lots of infanticide, too. Not abortions, because many won't come in to have that doe due to fear of permanent sterilization (for breaking the law) and other repercussions. Just wait til the baby's born and expose it. (you daren't leave it at a hospital because there's DNA and all that).

Will any consideration be given to different cultural interpretations of a child's physical and mental needs? Not entirely sure I would pass a British test, given my foreign ideas.

And most British parents would probably fail a test devised by a Swede, due to their failure (in Scandinavian eyes) to allow for children's need for independence and outdoor play. If my mother's generation got to devise the test, no parent who proved unwilling to spend several hours a day outside in the sleet and snow and pouring rain so their toddler could play in the mud would be considered suitable for a start. If you can't even give up your comfort, as LadyIsabella would put it...

What proof do you need?

Bloody difficult to prove they do exist though. Valuable political construct, but that doesn't make them real.

Anyone's allowed to shrug at human rights. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

Actually as a fully fledged Utilitarian I'm allowed to <shrug> at the whole "human rights" thing. They're a useful fiction, and generally best observed, but they're not an actual thing, and in extremis I ignore them for the purposes of argument. But even if they did exist, the right to have a child accidentally would not be one of them.

It's the compulsory element which breaches human rights though, Lady.

Even inadequate parents have the right to have children; to forcibly prevent them from doing so breaches their human rights. They may not have the right to bring them up, but they have the right to bear them.

Whilst I can see that this can cause horrendous situations, I really think the alternative- to disregard human rights- is fraught with danger and ethically a more horrendous situation.

Forcibly controlling people's fertility is not the only way to deal with the situation, and is not worth the cost.

Well obviously 9 billion

Sorry to be picky, but it's driving me mad; it's 9 billion, not 9 million.

The drugs/alcohol/nicotine thing isn't whether I disapprove of them, it's an imaginary symbol of having to prove that you want children enough to make a sacrifice to do so, because if you can't do it in order to get them, you'd be unlikely to put their interests first once they're here.

Not being able to have a child unless you want to have a child is not a breach of your human rights though, obviously, but unfortunately it's not the way the world works. In practical terms, long-lasting reversible male contraceptives would be nice.

Lady, stopping a human being- any human being- from breeding against their will is a breach of their human rights.

Even people you don't like.