The debate "Parents wanting child need financial and mental stability checked to prevent child poverty" was started by
July 16, 2015, 12:07 am.
39 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Turtle posted 1 argument, SalonY posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
I_Voyager posted 4 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, desght posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Turtle, sabrina, Shrutijain_12a, Girl101, HowdyDoody03, jonatron5, MEATMISSILE01, denno27, gouthamabi, skyfrancois_97, WhyNotNow, musejay1, TransPanTeen, wayneSPEC, Tristanzee, StarSoul, SalonY, I_talk2_Much, SirIntegra, fishermo20, kidkck and 18 visitors agree.
I_Voyager, historybuff, PsychDave, cmullins, Sosocratese, desght, TruthSeekerCivilSpeaker, Sarashouwne and 5 visitors disagree.
if parents are unable to provide selter,fire,clothes and bread they should not welcome any baby to the world
Although I know these are based on good morale, I see this as a bad idea altogether. Whats your plan to prevent them from having the children? History has shown time and time again there is NOTHING you can do to completely stop people from having sex, so that obviously won't work. What's the next idea? Maybe handing out birth control, condoms, or perhaps even the more permanent option of vasectomies to those below the poverty line or who fail the mental tests? Then you have costs rising, not just from giving out the birth control, but also from giving the test itself. And who will make them use the birth control? Nobody but (hopefully) themselves. If you want to give them a more permanent surgery then costs REALLY rise. So what's another option? Letting them have sex, make the birth control optional, but then once the baby is born, if they don't pass the test the kid is put in an orphanage. Well there are already more children in them than there are people looking to adopt, so putting more of them in there certainly won't make that situation better. Plus, by putting more of them into the foster homes, one of two things will have to happen, either the foster parents will have to pay out of pocket for the additional children, reducing the number of people who can afford to do this and therefore making the overcrowding even worse, leading to them living in a poverty stricken state, or the government will have to pay for additional housing, food, and medicine, leading to increased cost in taxes.
Although its bad that some kids have to grow up in these horrible environments, ultimately, leaving it the way it is is the best option.
I apologize if this was just an exercise in debate and not a genuine opinion.
I believe he is providing arguments for the sake of discussion rather than arguing from personal belief.
The problem here is not having people ask for permission; it's enforcing the law upon those who don't without just cause.
It's interesting that in the case of vaccines you are opposed to restricting freedom of choice despite there being no benefit to the freedom and, in fact, a cost. Whereas in this case you propose a costly system which restricts peoples freedoms and allows one class of people to oppress another.
(To create an argument and a discussion I will attempt to negate your stances on this moot! Feedback would be greatly appreciated). A child is precious. Children in fact are the back bones of our future. By limiting who can and who cant have children based on financial and mental stability means that we are narrowing down the future pioneers based on their parents. Yes, we may predict how these people may treat their children but we cant always be corect. The fact that they have to ask authorities shows the willingness and commitment they will have if they have the child - timr money and effort that they will invest into this child. All signs that the parents have the childs best interests in mind, means that the child poverty chances decreas (poverty = having little to notjing or no money or support). Child poverty can be prevented by looking after the citizens of the nation and authorities be on look out for victims.
This is true. It's impossible to screen perfectly for peoples' psychology... An abusive person may still also be wiley and clever and may outwit the tester. Though it's plausible that the use of certain technologies like EEG's can inform a tester as to when a subject is lying if the tester isn't smart enough to notice it socially.
I came to say pretty much exactly what I_voyager said. The only thing that I would add is that it would be difficult to stop abuse through a test or interview since many people would simply lie to avoid detection.
I don't think that financial stability is a factor. So long as true poverty isn't the state they live in... It's a dangerous game to say only people with a certain earning power may have their children, while only people who earn money ought to have children.
I agree with the mental state as a figure though. Abusive, cruel or insane people ought not raise children. Too many times I've seen that severely damage a child. But I've seen families with low incomes do fine.