This is a split from the homosexuality thread. I didn't want to go off topic, so I decided to create a new thread.

I'm just going to quote myself:



What do people think?

^
Assessing a couple to allow them to conceive is a horrible idea. Talk about infringing on rights.

If I had the choice between adoption and biological conception, then I would actually go for biological conception because of my idea of survival of the fittest. I want to pass my genes and that is what is really important to me.

Of course all parents should be screened. Reason being is that no two couples are the same, nor their lifestyle(s). As i said before, Adoption should be on a case by case basis. There's pros and cons to both.

"Of course all parents should be screened"

That's giving the state or federal government too much control of my freedom. It sounds like it can be abused. The ideology of people being screen and having to pass a fertility test is exactly the idea of "Eugenics." It was abused and people who were mentally handicapped (Down syndrome, etc. ) were sent to institutions and sterilized! That's so wrong! What happens when the government decides only blue eyes and blond hair should only be bred through? Or even black hair and brown eyes? We have our freedom and the idea of Eugenics can be abused just like Hitler and the American government did almost a century ago.

No, there should not be screening for biological parents. There is a huge difference between the government being responsible in finding a home for a child and controlling who can and cannot have children. As htwho said, it's dangerously close to eugenics.

Can we ever have an argument that isn't based on far-fetched assumptions (blue eyes? cmon!) Can we just focus on the matter at hand? Parents applying for adoption are screened. Factors such as mental, financial capacity, criminal records are considered. Parents who plan to conceive through biological means are not required to be screened for parental suitability. Hypocrisy or not? Freedom is a good thing to have, but in the society freedoms have to be restricted. And don't go off-topic. We are not talking about mentally-handicapped or eugenics. We are not selecting for specific traits. We are simply protecting potential children from parents who will not be able to provide them with the things they need, or even abuse them.

I meant to state, adopting parents..

What about non-adoptive parents? That's the reason I created the topic: I observe double standard.

That's what I thought you meant, sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you

The main problem with this idea is the only possible way to enforce it is sterilization. You can't prevent people from having kids if they want them, and if they do have them, the only way to "fix" it would be to do what China has done and take away children that aren't "supposed" to be there from their biological parents, which is something I recall you saying was unhealthy in the Homosexuality thread.

Double standard? What the hell? Are you kidding me?!?! Remix, have you even opened up a history book and read about eugenics? I used the "blue eyes" as an argument since Hitler pushed that in his agenda to clean Germany and his empire of handicaps, "sick" and "savage" races. It's not a double standard. You need to see what happens if such a law is passed. It's going to be horrible.

It's a tricky one.

1) The govt can't know when one is going to get pregnant

2) The Gov't isn't and shouldn't be this all-seeing eye in the sky..

3) If any intervention is to be done, perhaps the hospitals can be in touch with officials and report any suspicous characteristics about said couple(s). But this is a tightrope to walk.

^ Invasion of Privacy.

Why do we have to depend on the government? Are we not responsible for our own actions? What happened to personal responsibility and believing in people? So far the government has proven time and time again that it is incapable of handling foreign affairs and domestic problems. They can't even handle social security!

I was not considering the practical means of enforcing this. So let's not go there. Let's just discuss this from a theoretical point of view.


Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or are you purposely leading this discussion where you want it to go?
Double standard exists because adoptive parents are required to be screened for parental suitability, while biological parents are not.

Adoption and Natural Birth are two completely different issues though. Adoption is taking someone from a foster home or another family. Natural Birth is your own gawd given right.

If you let a drug lord have a child then fine, it's his responsibility but if you allow him to adopt a child, then you definitely need to check if you're putting SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD WHO THE FOSTER CARE PROMISED TO PUT IN GOOD HANDS, into good hands.

That's my point! Drug lords shouldn't be allowed to have children. A child is not a property of his/her parents. A government has the right to intervene when a child is abused or mistreated by his parents, and we DON'T say "parents should treat their children as they see fit and we as a society shouldn't have a say in this." Instead we find that it IS our moral obligation to step in and essentially violate private affairs. So why not step in and say "you are not qualified to have children; you can't provide them with loving, healthy and stable environment".

And what difference does it make if a child comes from another home or your wife's uterus? He's not anyone's property, he's a person with rights. He needs the same amount of attention and the same amount of love.

It is not legal to do that and I think it's morally wrong for other people to check on what the person is doing. I will move out of this country if such a law is put into effect because it is against the ideology of the Founding Fathers and against the American ideology of personal freedom and privacy. Simple as that. If people want that type of moral obligation thing, then go to another country. Not in America.

But that is exactly my point! We already live in such a state. Government does intervene when children are abused or mistreated! Some people loose parental rights altogether, children are sent to foster homes, etc. and I'm saying we can avoid this by restricting parental rights. It's a prevention of bad parenting before bad parenting starts. We already prevent bad parenting, we just wait until children are abused or mistreated, as oppose to it before it even starts.

^ Well, I want to reverse all of that. I don't want my government do be part of my life. They should be limited. It's up to the states to decide what to do but it definitely is not up to the government. Now you understand why I support the presidential candidate in my sig.

Majority of federal Government policies are inefficient and full of loopholes.

So you are saying if a child is being sexually abused by his parents, the authorities shouldn't have the right to step in?

^
No, I didn't say that. I support the police in prosecuting and punishing those people. I just don't support the idea that you should screen people because that's an impossible task. That's like screening people for guns when they have a constitutional right to bear arms.

Mental health check
Criminal background check
Financial capacity check
Testing for drugs
Seems fairly possible...

It's interesting that we are tested for many of these things when we apply for a job, or college, but when we decide to bring another human being into the world all of these things are ignored. And ironically raising a child carries much more responsibility and is far more important than your job as a sales clerk.

True but those things aren't part of the natural rights we are given. Sure you can debate what our natural rights are but I believe that reproduction is a natural right.

Companies wouldn't do those checks if those factors weren't harmful to their sales.

Reproduction is a natural right, but we live in a civilized society where natural rights need to be restricted in order to prevent chaos and create progress. I can propose just as easily that murder and rape are natural rights as well.

^ That's a dangerous line to walk on. History has shown that. To provide chaos and create progress, police states rose to power.

Murder and rape are not natural rights since they don't provide equality.

What do you mean they don't provide equality? And who put you in charge of deciding what is and what isn't a natural right? What makes your definition any better than mine?

I see no problem with screening adoptive parents and no problem not screening natural / biological parents.

Screening adoptive parents can help ensure that the parents will be able to provide for the child. "Wait a minute..." you say. And I interrupt and say it is the right of people to procreate- government should not be involved in deciding who can or can't have children (naturally, I add). It is also the right of the child to be raised by natural parents, if at all possible. Many of the children placed for adoption are there because their natural parents weren't able to properly rear them. So, at this point in their life, the child(ren)'s rights have to have some safeguards. A mistake was made once, but shouldn't happen again. Hopefully, the family steps in and takes the necessary steps to protect the child. Failing that, this is where I believe the government, or at least the community, should intervene.

Maybe the child's father (or mother) was killed, there are no grandparents or other family, and the mother (or father) couldn't raise the child and put the child up for adoption. Maybe it was a teen pregnancy and the mother made the choice. Are those bad things? I think they're both sad, but not bad- the family should step in, if there is one. What about in cases of rape where the mother keeps it then neglects the child? What about child abuse? These are examples of when the child should be adopted out- as far away from the situation as possible. People have the right to procreate, but do not have the right to take whichever child they choose and raise him/her/them as their own. The child(ren) being adopted out were put in that program for a reason. So, screen the adopting parents and guarantee that what happened before won't happen again.

And, for the love of life, be tactful about discussing the situation with the children. Protecting the child does not mean you have to lie or cover up what has happened. Lies to children beget hate by children. Children with hate... well... I'm not going there.

*edit:
I'm still on the fence about homosexual parenting. However, since homosexual partners are not capable of procreation without a third party, I will probably argue that they need screened as well, at least to the point of determining the household environment is stable enough to raise a child- emotionally and financially well bonded. Other than that, if they are willing and able to bring another life into the house, then they should be able to do so, but with oversight. Too many technicalities to go into here.

*2nd edit:
Thanks htwho. I hope I didn't mess up your point with my 1st edit.

Natural rights allow humans to thrive and not create choas by holding fundamental values. Strip humans of civilizations. Equality must always be present. Women, men, children should all have the same rights. Rape puts one party at a disadvantage due to NO CONSENT. That's what separates humans from other animals. Our ability to love and our compassion. We work as a team, as equals to achieve a goal. That's how we survived. In modern society, that has changed but those core natural rights should remain. The right to procreate.

Edit: Tao, FANTASTIC ANSWER. I was trying to convey that message but I guess I missed certain points. Perfect message! Thank you.

I see your point remix, but... I agree with tao muon in terms of why adoptive parents need to be screened. If the state/community has the responsibility to find a child a home, then it should do it's utmost to find the best home, just like any (normal) parent will do the best for their children.

I think you should think about the children of these "unsuitable" parents and how they would feel about it. I also think it unfair and unwise to try to judge the ability of someone to parent based on your own morals/world view.

Lots of poor people are good parents, indeed the majority of humanity seems to live in poverty. Lots of people who were involved in crime or drugs clean themselves up and make good parents. Anyone can keep off the drugs long enough to pass the tests and go straight back to them when they've got the baby.

Mental stability - harder to judge of course. Most mental illness is not of the paranoid, murderous schizophrenic variety though.

Finally, lots of people would pass your criteria but still make neglectful and abusive parents, while lots of potentially excellent parents would be prevented from having children. Preventing someone from conceiving naturally is denying them a very basic right; the point of their existence. Adoption is different, it doesn't involve denying, but giving someone the chance to raise a child they didn't originally have any right to.

I think a lot of people would be appalled at the idea of screening people because it scares them. For me, I think it would cause more problems than it would solve.

A government should have no position of authority in determining whether or not two people can procreate, no matter the scenario.

For the sake of devil's advocate, why would a person's job define their parenting abilities? Does a coal miner raise their child better or worse than a professional athlete? How about a doctor versus lawyer? That's always a classic; battle of the professionals. Riddle me this, who cares about the well being of their child more, President and CEO of a fortune 500 company or single mother working three jobs just to make ends meet?

It's a very slippery slope once you start drawing the line on who can procreate and who can't. Giving a government the (hypothetical) ability to selectively breed an entire population is a scary notion.

There'll be a revolution in any democratic society long before the right to have children could be taken away from the masses.

-Ax

Just for the record I never included someone's profession as a qualifier for parenthood. I think you misread my points.

...

Anyway after tao muon's and Persephone's posts, I'm starting to see that maybe I took this a bit too far. Perhaps there is no double standard after all. And I guess you guys are right, maybe it would cause more problems than it would attempt to solve. I'm still not 100% convinced, but I definitely don't feel as strongly about this now.

Remix, I think you were just having a gut reaction to the fact that there are "qualifications" for someone who wants to take on parenting someone else's child. Adoption is a legal issue; the actual process of conceiving a child is not. I can see why you would make that argument, but like everyone's said the negative outweighs the positive.

Yeah and I also didn't consider the fact that when it comes to adoption, competition becomes a factor. Screening would determine which parents have the best qualification. Another reason I was pushing for screening is due to all the horror news stories I come across regularly about parents mistreating, abusing or otherwise neglecting their children. If only there was a way to determine with absolute certainty who these parents are... But I guess as it stands now there are no practical means of making it happen. I guess my argument is in the realm of pure theory with no objective or fair means of enforcement.

I think everyone wishes that there was a foolproof way to prevent child abuse. Your idea did lead to an interesting argument though!

Thanks. I'm glad you guys contributed

^ Smaller government for the win!

Maybe it's better to take children away from unsuitable parents who will harm the child rather than screening them all before they got pregnant.