View Full Version : Parental Application Process

November 27th, 2002, 11:47 AM
Found this on a newsgroup.....

This idea would only work in a police state, of course, (which I am in support of) and I'm sure it won't sit well with a lot of people on this board. I'm fully aware that it will never be implimented unless humans are allowed to separate themselves into like-minded communities, in which case a police state community would be set up and I'd live happily ever after.

But, anyway, here's the idea;

Basically, one has to reach an age limit or pass a test before they are allowed to make significant life changes. 16 and a test to drive, 18 to vote, 21 (in America) to drink.

And yet there are no applications, testing processes or aptitude assesments before someone can become a parent, which is perhaps the most life-changing and drastic "significant life change" that there is.

I propose that before someone is allowed to have children they must complete a test; a physical examination, a medical history, a drug test, psychiatric assessment, a check to assure that they have the monetary and time resources available to provide the child with proper care, and they must pass a course on "basic parenting skills."

If a family has enough resources to raise a large family, then they can do just that; but if they are living on welfare, they will be prohibited from having children until they become self-sufficient.

And what about children had out of wedlock, or by people who just want to "screw around?" There are multiple options. One, the child would be confiscated and adopted out to a couple who passed the test but is biologically incapable of producing children. Two, the child is confiscated and raised in state care until her parent passes the parenting test. Three, the parent keeps the child, but is kept fully under state supervision.

A better choice would be to sterilize new infants (male and female), with a reversible surgical procedure, so that people will be sterile until the state test is passed, at which point they will regain their reproductive powers. Thus children produced out of wedlock would no longer be an issue, except in fluke cases, and we could care for thise children in the same way as previously stated.

These parental "aptitude tests" would be utilized in conjunction with genetic testing and therapy to cure disease and disability in utero, and optional abortion if the child will be born "retarded" or with crippling physical defects.

Of course, the big problem with programs like this is "well, who gets to decide who is a fit parent or not?" And I really don't know the answer.

I believe that this process would ensure strong, healthy, intelligent children with a real chance for the future, and along with a program of closed borders, universal education, zero-tolerance for crime (with death penalty, no appeals) and free health care, education and services (through higher taxes... think Sweden) my "police state" community would advance very quickly.

Of course, like I said previously, I know a lot of you guys would absoultely hate to live under a system like that, which is why, if I ever established it, I would only allow people in who actually WANTED to participate. (And whoever wanted to, would be welcome to leave.) But I'm getting sidetracked.

Regarding the parental application process, what do you guys think?

Personally, I do think people should pass a test to have kids, the author is right, you need to pass a test to drive, get a degree, a gun license, sit on a jury, why not to have kids? It would help "cull" the herd substantially. I heavily disagree with the authors insistance on high taxes and free healthcare though.

Twilight Garden
November 27th, 2002, 08:09 PM
I've had a few similar thoughts before, right after dealing with my husband's ex. :nonono: But I've never seriously considered it. It's just that trying to regulate a biological event like that is (1) impractical, (2) dictatorial, and (3) uneconomical. All IMHO, of course. None of your examples of things you have to pass test for or get a license to do are natural biological events.

November 27th, 2002, 09:03 PM
Mostly I think it's an all right idea. For years I've said that you may need a licence to marry and a licence to drive... but any twit can have a child. I have seen some people in my time that did not deserve the little angels that were given to them and it breaks my heart to see them not being treated the way they should.
I nearly jumped out of my car one day (I wish I had of) when I was waiting for some pedestrians to cross. This women had a beautiful little girl with her, all blonde curls and blue eyes, and was dragging this angel along the road by her arm. The little girl was no older than about 3 and when she stumbled was dragged up into the air by her arm until this woman reached the sidewalk.
If I have to cross a rather busy road with my little girl, I pick her up. I would never dream of dragging her about by her arm.
Anyway... like I said.. I agree with some of the ideas. I don't like the one about "If a family has enough resources...". I've never had much money, but I make sure that I have enough to feed and clothe my angel.

November 28th, 2002, 09:42 AM
I agree, but I don't. Nothing like sitting on a fence, eh? :p

In a perfect world, all people would want to do the best for their children. Sadly, this is not the case and the children are the ones to suffer. I wish there was some way to prevent this or at least minimize the dangers of neglect or ignorance in parenting.

I have often said the same as Kaya, regarding needing a license to drive but not have a child. But to have a process as SagaDraco describes, umm, that smacks of elitism, racial supremacy and restricition of independence and free will. As he said, it might work in a police state, but not in a democracy or society of free thinkers and doers.

What I wish would happen is high school level education of parenting. For example, the "egg or flour bag experiments" but on a more technological scale. And both males and females should participate as both parents are responsible to creating and sustaining a child. This is not to be seen as a scare tactic or birth control but as an effort to "educate" adults about how to care for the basic needs of a child.

In addition, I would like to see at an obstetrical level, classes required or at least offered in basic child care, nutrition, health and safety.

Again in a perfect world, we would learn this from our friends and family. But I have seen many cases of kids being brought up by parents who simply don't know better because of their own possibly dysfuntional upbringing. This is not making the parent a bad or evil parent, sometimes they just don't know better.

I hope that this doesn't come across as I am a perfect parent and shame on those who aren't. But I take my job and role as parent seriously and I try to do the best I can. But I have made mistakes, things have come out of my mouth towards my kids that I have immediately regretted. But still I strive to be the best I can, I continue to read about parenting issues, child development, education issues and so forth. And I guess that is all we can do. :)

Witchy Cowgirl
November 28th, 2002, 10:57 AM
Ah yes, a perfect world! But, if there were such a thing just exactely how perfect would it be?

As SagaDraco stated the biggest problem would be who gets to decide who is fit or not? For instance, some folks think that it is wrong for a gay couple to raise children....no matter how finically, physically, or emotionaly fit they may be for the job. What if the person decided was one of those people. Would you agree if your policed world was ran by one of those people? It's easy to agree for a policed world as long as you agree with everything the ruler is telling you.

I do agree there are people with children who don't deserve them and I hate to see little ones suffer.
I also agree with Chryssi's statement that such a socitey would lead to a mind set of racial supremacy.

To keep from rambling let me just say that all-in-all I don't agree with "policed socities".

Witchy Cowgirl
November 28th, 2002, 01:25 PM
Another problem I thought of....
Say a couple starting out is deemed fit in every way except finically. Because they want children very badly they work hard and become finically fit as well. But while working so hard one of them is injured causing that one deemed physically unfit. What then? Will the couple have to seperate so the other can have a child. They do sperate and become so unhappy and bitter that they become a threat to society? mmmmmm? Just thinking outloud. Or maybe they seperate and the one has a child, but because they are no loner with the one they love, start taking their frustrations out on the child? So the child is taken away to be raised by the state....should that child have been brought into the world in the first place? You see the parent was fit in the beginning but was so distraught after the child got here.... mmmmmm?

Ok, I'm ramblin'

November 29th, 2002, 07:53 AM
how does that song go....

"only stupid people are reproducing"

not to be totally taken for face value... but if you look at income and family size.. in the majority the smaller incomes have the more children... I knew a girl once who had kids jsut to get the mothers allowance. :mad:

December 1st, 2002, 12:12 PM
I'd also like to point out that SagaDraco did not write it :)

I also failed to see how "that smacks of elitism, racial supremacy", since neither race or socioeconomics are ever mentioned once. I do think it's a good idea in theory, but hellish to make work in practice, and like communism, would be a dismal failure. I do think say, people on welfare should be sterilized after a certain # of children(three sounds right) or a set time of recieving benefits, or their benefits will be cut forever. People who also cannot overcome drug addiction should also be sterilized.