I personally believe that people should have to take a test to become parents. That means if you don't qualify, you can't have kids.
It would be based on a number of factors, such as income, criminal history and IQ levels.
If you have an income high enough to support a child, but have a criminal record, you can't have a kid. If you have an IQ level of less than say, 70 and so does your spouse, no kid. If you have IQ level of 70, but your spouse has enough intelligence, and a good income, and no criminal history, you can have kid.
Medical concerns, and other things would be taken into consideration.
So, would a test to become a parent be a good idea, or a bad idea in the long run?
For the reason of parents not taking care of kids, In america, we have CPA. While, from what I have heard, they are giving to much freedom to what they are allowed to do, this gives parents the chance to have a child. Just because someone is stupid or a criminal, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have children. People make mistakes, wether it was doing bad in school resulting in a bad income, or assaulting someone resulting in a criminal record. It doesn't mean these people are bad people, and it doesn't mean they shouldn't have kids.
To top this all off, how are they going to enforce this? They can't stop people from having sex, they can't force people to have an abortion after they are pregnant, and they can't kill the baby once the parent has it. You could take the baby away from them, but then you would have millions of babies that you would need to give to other families and that would never meet their biological parents.
I think this is a horrible idea. Who decides who gets to have children?
From what I can tell, people always suggest a test they can pass. However, many of these idiotic "Parenting tests" would allow people who are otherwise fit to have children unable to do to pathetic useless factors. Take me for instance. I have an above average IQ, am practically guaranteed to have a steady income, and have no criminal record. I don't even have a genetic disease myself. But my father did, and his father etc. I have a chance to give my child a practically harmless disease, spherocytosis, meaning that the blood will simply be an incorrect shape. Minor surgery may be required to remove a useless spleen, but other than that my child would preform antiquity. Does that mean that I shouldn't be able to have children if I come across a wife?
I don't even have a genetic disease myself. But my father did, and his father etc. I have a chance to give my child a practically harmless disease, spherocytosis, meaning that the blood will simply be an incorrect shape. Minor surgery may be required to remove a useless spleen, but other than that my child would preform antiquity. Does that mean that I shouldn't be able to have children if I come across a wife?
When I suggested the genetic disease thing, I was more of thinking the more serious ones. As in, you'll die young, painfully, and there's no cure. (Yet)
I'm also sort of viewing this in a hypothetical sort of way, as there's no way to enforce this unless you force people to take the test, detain them until the results are in, and then make them not ever able to have children if they fail, which would be fairly monsterous.
It -would- be for the best of the human race if people only reproduced the best genes, but obviously, this isn't going to happen.
When I suggested the genetic disease thing, I was more of thinking the more serious ones. As in, you'll die young, painfully, and there's no cure. (Yet)
Wouldn't that make it really difficult to have children, you know, being dead at a young age and all? I can't think of one off the top of my head that is fatal, aside from things that happen to anyone.
I'm also sort of viewing this in a hypothetical sort of way, as there's no way to enforce this unless you force people to take the test, detain them until the results are in, and then make them not ever able to have children if they fail, which would be fairly monsterous.
Or just not giving them a birth certificate. It isn't hard to go back into people's record and say "Well this guy murdered someone. He isn't aloud to have a child. No birth certificate for you" or looking in to see that they have a genetic disease. And besides that, wouldn't that be what the test is doing? Not making them able to have children if they fail? None of the prerequisite mentioned are changing things. Your history doesn't change. Your diseases don't change. Your IQ doesn't change much. You are not going to go to a hospital one day, take the test, and then fail "Oh, it turns out I murdered someone." then come back in three years completely clean.
It -would- be for the best of the human race if people only reproduced the best genes, but obviously, this isn't going to happen.
Who decides what is best? Do we have Hitler up there on the stage, making his pure race free of Jews, homosexuals, mentally ill, and whatever else he hated that was genetically passed? Who decides who is fit to have children?
I'll be honest; it sound like a great idea. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't take care of the problem. I could see people who have high incomes and IQs still being neglectful parents. I don't think there's a fair way to know whether or not someone will be a good parent because it's a ridiculously different experience than anything that'll be on your record. If anything, parents who are suspect of being bad parents should be monitored, but even this would violate our freedoms. Like MageGrayWolf said, I don't think there's a practical way to apply the idea, however appealing the end result sounds.
This is a terrible idea. The government should have no power over something that personal. Yes, the parents could be abusive, but disallowing someone to have kids because of intelligence level in quite honestly the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Besides anything the HRSB comes up with. But that's just my opinion.
Criminal history being weighed into such a test is a nice way of saying people who don't uphold my values shouldn't be allowed to breed. The rest of this "test" would surely follow a similar pattern. Such a test would not prevent child abuse, it would be a device for the systematic and state-sanctioned destruction of anyone who did not uphold majority societal values.
It's like Communism. It sounds good in theory but it will be horrible in practice.
Criminal history being weighed into such a test is a nice way of saying people who don't uphold my values shouldn't be allowed to breed. The rest of this "test" would surely follow a similar pattern. Such a test would not prevent child abuse, it would be a device for the systematic and state-sanctioned destruction of anyone who did not uphold majority societal values.
Some one said something about forcebly aborting children, and that because they are already pregnet, but not allwold to have the child, they do that, force them to abort. In china, every family is only allwold 1 child. If you have another, forced abortion. Why do you think people dont want to stay there? Like what grimml said, china is communist and while that doesnt have much to do with it being overflowed with people, this is just an example of forced abortion, communism is one of the factors that can happen. So say some one gets pregnat and they didnt pass the test, they have to hide from the law! No parent wants to have to hide to protect their children, but they will! Eventully people will leave and move to places where the law isnt that you have to pass that test. I just think this is a bad idea.
Some one said something about forcebly aborting children, and that because they are already pregnet, but not allwold to have the child, they do that, force them to abort. In china, every family is only allwold 1 child. If you have another, forced abortion. Why do you think people dont want to stay there?
Because it is crowded, poor, and generally not a very good place to live if you are poorer?
Like what grimml said, china is communist and while that doesnt have much to do with it being overflowed with people, this is just an example of forced abortion, communism is one of the factors that can happen.
Lolwut? No. He is saying Communism looks good on paper, where everyone gets everything they need no social strife etc, but has never worked in practice. He is saying that this looks good on paper (Which I disagree with) but would be corrupt in use.
So say some one gets pregnat and they didnt pass the test, they have to hide from the law! No parent wants to have to hide to protect their children, but they will! Eventully people will leave and move to places where the law isnt that you have to pass that test. I just think this is a bad idea.
Enforcing tests on people is a bad idea, for many reasons that were stated already in the thread. I do like the idea of education, though. Ideally it would be free education for first-time parents. However, those that cause problems for their children are the kind that wouldn't go to these lectures anyway, and enforcing the lectures would be almost as restricting as the testing idea (with much weaker results). Not to mention the amount of resources that would be needed to form the lectures and organize them systematically. However, what could be done is putting those lectures in a system that already includes enforced lecturing: schools. If kids can be taught not to take drugs and to have responsible sex, they can be taught to be responsible parents too, even if it helps just a small bit. The effect of such lectures wouldn't be much, but it's the best that can be done given all the limitations. Hell, you could even put tests in there, it's normal for a school. The results shouldn't legally restrict the person of their birth given right of giving birth ( ), but a requirement to pass the test could exist anyway, with the punishment for not passing being going back to the classes. If it helps just one person per generation, it's still worth it.
