Premier Rock Forum

Josef K wrote:It's got to be said Mandroid, that your stance is a little hypocritical when you prescribe that everyone else should adopt to help out the orphans but you would not.

I don't think she's being hypocritical at all. She would be if she wanted kids and was getting IVF to enable it but she's clearly stated several times that she doesn't want kids. If she doesn't want her own why would she want someone else's?

I would say I have a peculiar stance on it which could be deemed hypocritical because I think the idea of adopting rather than test tubing is the socially more responsible move.
But I wouldn't do it.
I openly admit that one of the primary reasons for me wanting to have kids would be that my genes - somehow - will go on.
Worthiness doesn't come into it.
If it did I'd be suggesting we sterilise the council estate baby factories who keep plopping out kids they can't afford to raise either financially or emotionally.

On that slightly controversial note has anyone got an opinion on this?

Earwicker wrote:Another question: people in this country can be banned from owning a dog if they don't treat it right. Should we not be able to ban neglectful/abusive/morons from siring extra humans if they prove themselves to irresponsible in the upbringing of a first one?

I withhold my opinion partly because I start swimming in murky mind waters when I consider it.

Should anyone be allowed to own a dog - no matter how abusive they have been to one in the past?

If you say 'no' then should humans be allowed other children if they've already fucked one up?

Earwicker wrote:

Earwicker wrote:Another question: people in this country can be banned from owning a dog if they don't treat it right. Should we not be able to ban neglectful/abusive/morons from siring extra humans if they prove themselves to irresponsible in the upbringing of a first one?

I withhold my opinion partly because I start swimming in murky mind waters when I consider it.

Should anyone be allowed to own a dog - no matter how abusive they have been to one in the past?

If you say 'no' then should humans be allowed other children if they've already fucked one up?

People are not dogs. I'm not sure your analogy works, because (generally) we don't believe dogs and humans to be of the same worth. In what meaningful way are people like dogs, relevant to this discussion?

I can't see myself having kids.

Adoption seems like such an obvious choice for someone that doesn't really give a damn about whether or not my particular genes get passed on. Hopefully I'll have enough of an influence on my child that certain core principles and family values will be passed on to his children. That's all that really matters to me.

Mandroid2.0 wrote:

Josef K wrote:What about the psychological well being of those unable to start a family without medical help.

It's got to be said Mandroid, that your stance is a little hypocritical when you prescribe that everyone else should adopt to help out the orphans but you would not. I mean you don't have to adopt a baby, you could get a teenager and still be helping out.

When did I say that everyone should adopt? I said that I'd prefer that they did. I said that they should if they express religious opinions that restrict abortions and favour adoptions, but that's a different matter that apparently doesn't exist outside the borders of the U.S.

Also, I'm not fit to be a mother. I know that, my friends know that, and even my own mother knows that. I would not be helping out anyone by adopting a child. Seriously. That kid would be better off in an orphanage or in foster care.

I understand that, from what you've written earlier, but the point I'm trying to make is that removing the facility of fertility treatment because there are orphan children is much the same totalitarian concept as making childless couples (or singles - there are plenty of kids well brought up by single parents) adopt.

Even if the suggestion is not for state intervention and what is actually being suggested is that they (the fertility problem people) should consider their moral obligation to mankind above their own desire for a child of their own.
If so, should we not all be asking ourselves if there is a place in our lives to assist solving the problem?

miseryandthesun wrote:Hopefully I'll have enough of an influence on my child that certain core principles and family values will be passed on to his children. That's all that really matters to me.

You'll teach him/her to hate lesbians?

Rick Reuben: I would much rather be considered a 'pussy bitch' (nice term, like it) than "EA Forum Member Most Likely To Go Into Their Local Shopping Centre On A Killing Spree"

simmo wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Earwicker wrote:Another question: people in this country can be banned from owning a dog if they don't treat it right. Should we not be able to ban neglectful/abusive/morons from siring extra humans if they prove themselves to irresponsible in the upbringing of a first one?

I withhold my opinion partly because I start swimming in murky mind waters when I consider it.

Should anyone be allowed to own a dog - no matter how abusive they have been to one in the past?

If you say 'no' then should humans be allowed other children if they've already fucked one up?

People are not dogs. I'm not sure your analogy works, because (generally) we don't believe dogs and humans to be of the same worth. In what meaningful way are people like dogs, relevant to this discussion?

I am drawing a comparison to highlight what some might see as an odd contradiction in society's attitude to who should have the right and responsibility of care.
If you own an animal you have to care for it well for it to survive and for it not to become a vicious killer (if it's a dog).
The same applies to parents raising children.

The contradiction is that society will prevent someone from owning more animals if they care for them badly and they certainly wouldn't let them breed more animals to not take care of - yet they do not do the same if a human has cared for another human badly.

In other words you are entirely correct dogs are not the same has humans. Humans (to most) should be seen as more important yet dogs seem to be more protected than children in this instance.

Now social services can remove children from parents if they think there is a risk but no one has anything to say about the bad parent having the kids in the first place.
Why not?

It seems to be to be about rights - first of all the right of some neglectful abusive twat to inappropriately have more kids (which should in itself be questionable) but more interestingly there seems to be an apparent right for someone that doesn't exist yet to somehow have the chance of existing.

This isn't about abortion where people can argue about when the cells become a person this is prior to that.
It is about the idea of a potential person.

Earwicker wrote:I am drawing a comparison to highlight what some might see as an odd contradiction in society's attitude to who should have the right and responsibility of care.

If you own an animal you have to care for it well for it to survive and for it not to become a vicious killer (if it's a dog).
The same applies to parents raising children.

The contradiction is that society will prevent someone from owning more animals if they care for them badly and they certainly wouldn't let them breed more animals to not take care of - yet they do not do the same if a human has cared for another human badly.

Many would argue that the right to bear children is a human right, and one that the state can and should have no right to interfere with. I'm not sure anyone would argue that the right to own a dog is a human right. And the relationship of "bearing" is very different to the relationship of "owning". Consequently, the ethical considerations to be taken in to account when looking at these relationships are different.

Earwicker wrote:Now social services can remove children from parents if they think there is a risk but no one has anything to say about the bad parent having the kids in the first place.
Why not?

On the contrary, I think people have plenty to say about bad parents having kids. It's common to hear people criticising bad parenting, and saying that bad parents shouldn't have children - at least, I hear it a lot. I would say that trends perceived as indicative of bad parenting are heavily criticised in the national media too - I don't know, perhaps a comprehensive cross-media study would find otherwise, I'm just talking about my own impression. But when people say that bad parents shouldn't have kids, this concept of "should" is a moral one. Again, is it the government's place to turn this subjective moral idea in to objective legislation? I for one would be deeply opposed to governments being able to dictate who has kids.

Moreover, even if such a policy were to be pursued, how would it be tested and enforced? Who would assess potential parents for their worth, and what criteria would they use? How would the policy be enforced? Through medical intervention? Not the first time, the discussion seems to be veering dangerously towards eugenics....

simmo wrote:
Moreover, even if such a policy were to be pursued, how would it be tested and enforced? Who would assess potential parents for their worth, and what criteria would they use? How would the policy be enforced? Through medical intervention? Not the first time, the discussion seems to be veering dangerously towards eugenics....

Totally agree, a step too far in restriciting liberties. Let's be content to pick up the pieces.

I'd love to have kids some day. At the moment though, being an uncle suits me just fine.