Contraception should be mandatory for both sexes until they have passed a fit for parenting exam: theory and practice.

[HullyEastergully]

I'm serious.

My husband had cancer and repeated courses of chemotherapy.

He cannot have children. Not, 'there is only a remote chance'... He has had tests and there are no live sperm. Whatsoever.

Should we have to use contraception??????

Ariel - Yes, 9 million is the number usually given for the bulge which is the top generation or two (which are living a lot longer which is a big part of the bump) going through. The rate of fertility has steeply declined and will likely meet death rates quite soon (it's 2.45 now, 2.1 is considered replacement, rates have more than halved I believe since the 50s and will likely get down to replacement in a decade or so, possibly sooner if it keeps cutting at the current rate but it has slowed slightly in the last few years) but we would still need to go through the baby boomers bulge before the population would really decline. Even a less than replacement rate wouldn't slow anything down really until then.

Which is why any debate about resources would have nowt to do with babies, its all to do with the currently very unbalanced distribution and ownership of resources.

Well let's hope you wouldn't have failed it op. hate the fact that if anyone else had posted this they would have got flamed.

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.

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.

Well obviously 9 billion

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.

Actually as a fully fledged Utilitarian I'm allowed to 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.

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

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

What proof do you need?

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...

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).

Also a good hoop Cory . 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"

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.

Yes. Just yes.

YABU

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

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

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?

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.

So op whose doing the judging then?

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

But in theory I agree.

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.

face to face. Damned autocorrect.