Posted by Hannah
on 6/1/2009, 13:25:08, in reply to "Re: wait"
'Now I'll stop rambling' is basically an apology in a more implied form, so I rest my case. :) (And yes! I defiled your message board with a smiley.)
I know that you were getting more at horrible parenting. It was me who was getting at overpopulation. I think the rant was bubbling up within me ready to erupt at the slightest provocation, which in this case was the slightest mention (implication, even) of mass birth control.
But now it has spilled and is gone, and now I am interested in what you think a good method could be of ensuring good parenting skills. I've given this a good deal of thought in the past and while I can't see the benefit of people just continuing to be allowed to have kids after they've abused previous children, been convicted of serious crimes, had seven other kids who are barely subsisting as it is, etc., I also can't see a solution that would even begin to go over well.
The closest I can get is to subject every prospective parent to the same kind of rigorous screening that adoptive parents are already subject to. If it can be argued (and hopefully it can) that parenting and adoptive parenting carry the same (enormous) responsibility, then it surely can be argued that both biological and adoptive parents should be subject to the same 'screening'.
But how would it be enforced? Pregnancy is a condition that's not always invited or welcomed, and it would be - what - criminalized? Abortions required if a test is failed? Adoption required if a test is failed? Where do all these good parents willing to adopt magically appear from? I think you mentioned sterilization in your original entry. What's going to keep people showing up to their sterilization appointments?
Add that to the resentment that prospective parents will feel towards the powers-that-be (in this case, whoever's determining their fitness). It would be hard for the people to implement any sort of change or revolution should the government (assuming the government's administering) become corrupt, since prospective fighters would be prevented from coming into existence and revolutionaries would necessarily die out.
I don't know, it's a fast and dangerous slippery slope, and though I know slippery slopes don't always matter (the funniest one I've heard, I think, is the whole gay-marriage panic-inducing one that conservatives use to convince us that gay marriage will ruin the universe... you know, the one where they say if we let gay people get married, then people will be able to marry dogs and aliens and microwaves and cars), but sometimes they do matter and I think this is an instance where, if anything like parent-control were to begin to be tentatively implemented, the giant issues would be readily apparent very quickly. (Whereas I'm not sure that anybody would be petitioning the Supreme Court to marry their Porsche anytime soon, and if they did, there would be mountains of legal reasons to deny them, gay marriage or no gay marriage.)
So, long story short, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. I'm really interested.
94
Message Thread: