I ASK YOU

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago

   
   In light of the case of Donald & Louise Turpin, parents who abused their children & other abusive/unqualified parents, do you believe that there should be qualifying tests to become parents?   Also do you believe that there should be a limit on how many children a couple should have?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      No.  We already have plenty of unenforceable laws on the books and far too much govt. interference in private lives already.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Hopefully, there will be a MANDATORY law which would ENFORCE testing to be qualified for parenthood & a limit as to how many children couples should have.   There are so many unqualified parents out there which will impair future generations.   If there were such laws enforced, there would be less social problems & less taxes think again Wilderness!

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Laws do not enforce themselves.  It takes police to do that.
            
            So Jane Doe is past puberty and the law says she cannot have a child.  Will you sterilize her before it happens, force her to wear a chastity belt locked by the local sheriff or wait until she's pregnant and then tell her she cannot have children?  If you wait, will you force an abortion on her or take the child away and put it into the foster system? 
            
            Just how do you propose to enforce that a woman not have a child until you've tested her and decided she will be a good (by your definition) parent?
            
            And of course that brings up the other point; who gets to make the definition of what it takes to be a good parent?  We've already been over this, several times, in the past and I strongly disagree with your definition that it requires large sums of money and none to few siblings.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I stand by my premise.  I said it & meant it.  NEXT..........

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  But you haven’t really answered any questions. Logistically it doesn’t make a lot of sense. You cannot sterilize someone against their will. You cannot force a woman to have an abortion. And if you just take away kids and put them into the foster system it will become overwhelmed and those kids will probably suffer more than they would have with a less than ideal but present parental figure.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     The licensing would be done on prospective couples who want to be parents.  Once people are parents, nothing can be undone really.  The test would be for people who desire to become parents.  It would be done as a PREVENTIVE measure.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        But you can’t stop people from having sex and conceiving. So if a woman who wasn’t “qualified” to have a child got pregnant... what are you gonna do? Those are your options: sterilize to prevent it from happening in the first place, force her to have an abortion, or take her kid away at birth. They all suck.

                        replyreport
2. 70

   Aime Fposted 6 years ago

   No.
   
   Who would decide what makes someone fit to be a parent? How would you test it? Where do you draw the line (do you go full eugenics and not allow disabled people to have children, etc.)? It’s a massively slippery slope and highly unethical. As much as it’s nice to imagine that only people capable of caring for children would have children... it’s not something we can or should have any control over.
   
   I also feel it would be massively hypocritical to fight for legal abortion on the basis of women having a right to do what they want with their own bodies and lives, all the while making it illegal for a woman to become pregnant in the first place... for any reason.
   
   I’m also not sure how you would enforce this aside from involuntary sterilization or forced abortion, which is just so icky I don’t even want to think about it. So again, it’s a hard no from me.

   replyreport
3. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago

   There are people who are simply not parent material.  There should be tests regarding a person's preparedness & maturity emotionally, intellectually, mentally, psychologically, & particularly socioeconomically before they become parents.  Too many societal ills are caused by people who are unqualified parents.  For example, look at people like the Turpins & other abusive/unstable parents.   There are people who simply shouldn't be parents. There are licenses for almost everything else, why shouldn't there be licensing for parenting.  If there were licensing for parenting, there would be a better quality of parenting & less abusive parenting.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think that your idea here is a bit "over the top" for me. While the situation with the 13 kids is tragic, I am not ready to have the state qualify parents or to direct how many children they should have.
      
      Was it not a Judge in Alabama, itmay not have been Roy Moore, who discussed sterilization as a option for prison inmates as a condition of the parole? I don't like the direction that is taking us.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         It isn't really over the top but an intelligent thought.   If parents were judged emotionally, intellectually, mentally, psychologically, & sociologically fit, there would be less social problems.   There would be less prisons, welfare, & mental illness.   The society would be immensely better if emotionally, intellectually, mentally, psychologically, & sociologically fit & mature people are parents.  There are far too many parents who don't fit these descriptions & look at the results in our society & culture.
         
         
         Credence2, I would like to add that there should be a limit upon the number of children a couple has.  1-2, maybe 3-4 children are enough for parents to handle.  Credence2, you are an educated, intelligent man who is aware of the social dynamics of family.  In order to have an effective family & parent-child relationship, there has to be either an equal & slightly more ratio of parent-child.  Parents have to exercise a positive span of control regarding their children.  With 1-2 children, parents can easily exercise a positive span of control.  Although with 3-4 children, it is harder but parents can exercise a modicum of a span of control. 
         
         However, in larger families of 5-more children, such isn't necessary the case.  In such families, parents are vastly outnumbered by their children.  Two things happen, either the parents becomes overwhelmed & is neglectful, delegating their parental duties to the oldest/older children in the household or the parents become authoritarian, becoming extreme in exercising their span of control.( I learned the theory span of control in business class which I am applying to parenting principles.)  Parents of larger families oftentimes adopt extreme methods regarding their span of control methodology.
         
         Smaller families are better for children emotionally, intellectually, mentally, psychologically, & socioeconomically.  In smaller families, parent-child & sibling-sibling relationships are more or less equal.  Parents can spend quality time w/their children.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Grace,
            
            Who would give the authority to some Government bureaucrat to make the decisions as to who are fit parents and who are not? This gets close to approaching eugenic ideas. What would be the ulterior motive behind who passes 'the test' and who does not? Does anyone really know about such things? Thanks for the compliment but I have never had children of my own. I think of societies that mandate sizes and gender composition for families and it is not in the American tradition. I can't say that families with more than 5 children would be unmanageable, because I came from such a family. There are many variables to consider. I don't know if there are any universal rules or expectations for parents relative to the number of children they choose to have and raise. There may well be parents that are dysfunctional with one child, while there are parents that can successfully raise 5 or more.
            
            You may well be right about smaller families, but we cross a slippery slope when we subject ourselves to Government mandates with mandatory requirements.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               To Aime, Wilderness, & Credence2, excellent points made.  Continue the discussion w/o me.  I am exiting.  I am now going to look at Heaven by Diane Keaton on Amazon Prime & afterwards, listen to Alex Jones. Good night all.

               replyreport
4. 89

   GA Andersonposted 6 years ago

   Next? Not me! That you would even advocate such a position tells me you aren't looking for a discussion - just a soapbox and a gated community.
   
   GA

   replyreport
5. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago

   Error, meant David Turpin, not Donald Turpin.  Don't know why I was thinking of Donald......

   replyreport